Talk:Operation Clambake/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image screenshot

Operation Clambake, listed fourth in Google search for "Scientology", shortly after being relisted on Google search engine, March 22, 2002.

• The image is taken directly from the cited link, as specified on the image page. And the statement at http://www.xenu.net specifically allows for this image to be used on Wikipedia. Cirt 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Please, discuss here on the talk page, why don't you feel this image should be included in the article? It fits with policy because of the statement about image use on http://www.xenu.net - Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given. - and credit is given on the image's page. Cirt 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

1. The image is a screenshot of Google hits for term "Scientology", with Web site Operation Clambake as the fourth result on the list. This search was performed very shortly after Google relisted Operation Clambake in searches for "Scientology" - 01:16am (CET), March 22, 2002.
2. The image was taken from this link - [1], and this is the Operation Clambake page that discusses that image - [2].
3. Because of this disclaimer on http://www.xenu.net - Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given. Pick up the stick! - we should be able to use this image, on this article, on Wikipedia.

Cirt 05:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

I don't care about copyright or not. Read WP:OR. And - you remind me of someone, have you edited here before re-registration? Misou 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The image is valid, it comes from a trusted source, I have provided the link location, and Operation Clambake has given permission expressly for its use on Wikipedia. I don't see any problems with using this image here. Cirt 06:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Do you actually WANT to understand what I am saying? The content of the image is WP:OR, the content of the image is not verifiable and the source of the image is not reliable. My last words. Misou 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The source of the image is reliable and verifiable, check the links I have provided above. Operation Clambake has been used in the past and continues to be considered a dependable source of information and citations on Wikipedia. Not the message boards, for sure, but the main site itself. Everything is in order here to use this image on the article about Operation Clambake itself. Cirt 06:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Useless. But here is an open question, what was your earlier user name? Or are you using more than one right now? Misou 06:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting unrelated to this particular topic. I am only using one user name right now. What about you? Are you using more than one user name right now? Cirt 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

No. And I believe that you are using only one user name right now. This doesn't answer the question. Interesting reaction. Good night. Misou 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And neither did you answer my question. Interesting reaction. Cirt 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

I did, but we know already that you give a sh**. Over and out. Misou 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of the asterisk, but even that type of dialogue shows this is not the sort of individual to get into a longer discussion with, unless it's about something in particular to do with an article on Wikipedia. Over and out. Cirt 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Exactly, and your obvious ignorance of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR shows that you don't care (aka "give a sh**"'). Misou 06:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I will wait to hear from some other editors on the use of this image in the article on Operation Clambake, specifically with regard to the proprietor's release of these images specifically for use on Wikipedia, stating: http://www.xenu.net - Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given. Pick up the stick! Cirt 06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

• Its not OR because the image and its conclusion was made by Clambake and not editors here
• its certainly verifiable (the online source is longstanding and accessable)
• In my opinion it is also reliable. Operation Clambake is often cited in the media. For this image we don't even need to agree that OC is an expert on Scientology because the image is about OC and its google rating.
• one month later OC was even on first place[3] due to the prior censorship. :) We could also use this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan En (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. It is OR because someone used Google, typed in a word and made a snapshot of the "result". It is not verifiable, because it says it would be from 2002, or do you have a time machine handy? The URL looks faked or cut and the ad to the right is a fake for sure. I have no idea what "censorship" you are talking about and what has this do to with the picture? Misou 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment was signed before you splitted it ! -- Stan _talk 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it read like from the same hand. Anyway, Curt, you had a steep learning curve in WP, didn't you? Pro from day 1, editing only in one area. Sorry if this just looks like a SPA to me. Stan, your response avoids answering to my response above. What is your answer to that? Misou 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have a "steep learning curve". You know that I already had a German account several month before(and I still have a link to it on my userpage) and de.wikipedia isn't that different except that there is no WP:CIVIL. Thats why I enjoy to edit here now and did already know how most thinks work. The ad in the right isn't a fake, several newspapers did also report about it. And again, it is not OR because the OC did the snapshot and explanation but not an editor. (Its ok if a secondary source contains OR. Actually, thats why we use them to avoid OR ourself) Your "fake speculation" on the other hand is OR. Find a source wich supports your statement. -- Stan _talk 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou, you violatated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL once again! Quite funny(or sad ?) that you continue to speculate about others beeing sock puppets, SPA's or having a COI especially with your own record in mind[4] [5]. If you would stop provocating others and discuss content and edits only you would save all of us a lot of time.-- Stan _talk 14:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So, so, now Stan is back. Hilarious! Please, one of you "many", could you please give me a Wikipedia policy which applies and why? Misou 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Won't explain this to you again! Me and others did it often enough! -- Stan _talk 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where? You can't chicken out by playing primadonna, give specifics. Misou 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF because you assume that Cirt has a second account without giving any reason for it

WP:NPA,WP:CIVIL because you continued after Cirt told you that he doesn't have one with further speculations. (again without any prove) If you think you have some, go to AN/I. Now, Do you want me to continue and list everytime you crossed the line and somebody explained it to you?! Admittedly this was a lighter violation from you, you did worse in past ;) but its still not ok. -- Stan _talk 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it, bro, but he did not answer the question. See above. Misou 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He did, even it was not his burdon to do so. "I am only using one user name right now.", quite clear and with a little AGF I would interpret "right now" as just what it is. (Many editors have 2 accounts to operate a BOT) It's non of our business if he had or maybe wants to have a legal second good faith account later. However , right now he doesn't and no further assumptions should be done, period. Lets get back to the content dispute now :) . -- Stan _talk 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okokokok, maybe certain type of people just write and act the same, like serial production cars. Misou 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Standardized cites

• I have standardized all of the citations within the article using Wikipedia:Citation templates. Cirt 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Oh, and also utilized cites from (55) sources to expand upon the article. Cirt 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Lack of criticism

I am a little surprised that there is no mention of any criticism of the site's reporting, from neutral corners. Parts of the presentation on Operation Clambake are clearly misleading; contrast e.g. Clambake's presentation at

1. http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html

with the information given in section 175 of the Foster report (a very well-known document, written several decades ago for the UK government; note the wording "Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV")

2. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html

and the conclusions spelled out here:

3. http://www.bernie.cncfamily.com/freddie/materials/fairgame.html

Andreas can hardly claim to be unaware of the above facts, since I am sure they must have been pointed out to him many times over. Indeed, if you click on his "A second opinion" bubble, and then click further links, you may eventually get to a post saying much the same as above; however, the right thing to do for Andreas would simply be to correct his Fair Game page (as should umpteen other critics' sites). No? -- Jayen466 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• However that would be your own personal interpretation and inference into material on the Operation Clambake site. If you find criticism of the organization in secondary sources, feel free to let us know. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
  • I've had a look, but there is very little beyond the internet/google controversy about the site in the media, and sociologists of religion tend not to write about individual critics' sites (though I've seen the site cited in at least one sociological paper, as a source for course prices). I'll keep an eye out. -- Jayen466 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Leipzig Award Committee members

The Committee: Gerry Armstrong, Canada, Artist - Ursula Caberta, Director of the Task Force on Scientology, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg - Prof. Claire Champollion, Linguist, Researcher and Author, Paris, France - Joe Cisar M.S. , Cleveland, Ohio, Vietnam Veteran, Journalist - Prof. Dr. Alexander Dvorkin, Moscow, Director of the St. Irenaeus-of-Lyon-Center - Rev. Thomas Gandow, Berlin, Germany, Publisher Berliner Dialog - Mike Garde, Dublin, Dialogue Ireland - Roger Gonnet, Paris, Author - Friedrich Griess, Vienna, Engineer, Press spokesman of the Gesellschaft gegen Kultgefahren Österreich - Birgitta Harrington, Accountant, Helsingborg, Sweden - Tilman Hausherr, Berlin, Software-Developer - Ursula MacKenzie, Retiree, London - Solveig Prass, Business Manager, Leipzig, EBI Leipzig, Prof. Dr. Johannes Aagaard, Aarhus, Denmark, President of the Dialog Center International (DCI) Source: http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/020406a.htm Despite the name, the award is all about Scientology, rather than a bona fide human rights award. That should at least be mentioned. 172.188.201.48 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the No Original Research policy on Wikipedia. You are making up your own personal inferences and opinions from a list of individuals, and adding them to the article. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Well, and you are presenting the Leipzig Award as though it were a generic human rights award, which it is not. It was instituted only to protest President Clinton's perceived sympathies for Scientology. The charter on its website makes it clear that the award's focus is the fight against Scientology. 172.188.201.48 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you cite these assertions you make with a citation from a secondary source? Cirt (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
      • There are multiple press cites on the award site's press clippings page at http://www.leipzig-award.org/englisch/presseecho_2002.htm "The committee regards itself as an anti-Scientology organization" (Frankfurter Rundschau) "The internationally composed European-American citizens committee presents itself as an anti-Scientology organization." (epd) "The committee says it is composed of Scientology opponents from all over the world." (AP) See also the website of the German Protestant Church, whose sect commissioner Thomas Gandow is a founding member of the committee: "Das international zusammengesetzte «Europäisch-Amerikanische Bürgerkomitee» versteht sich als Anti-Scientology-Organisation." ("The European-American Citizens' Committee, which has an international membership, sees itself as an anti-Scientology organization.") The connection with President Clinton's perceived support for Scientology is adequately covered and sourced in the WP article on the award, which you authored yourself. 172.142.136.178 (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree that this info is better sourced in the article on the award itself. Too much elaboration and mention in this article beyond a few sentences about the reception of the award itself, is bordering on tangential. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
          • Presenting Heldal-Lund in the introduction as the recipient of a human rights award without making clear that, despite its neutral name, this is a prize awarded to Scientology opponents by Scientology opponents smacks of unjustified aggrandization. It withholds crucial information without which the reader will form a skewed picture in his mind. However, the new wording with "opposed to" addresses this shortcoming adequately. 172.142.136.178 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Glad to hear it. Y Done. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Not a great reference

In "Confirmed: Crusaders Google Bomb Scientology", the author seems to be completely unaware that xenu.net has been in the #3 slot for a while, after years in the #2 spot until bumped by Wikipedia. AndroidCat (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. That source is only used as a reference to show that people have attempted to use the Google Bomb to drive up its result in searches even higher, to the #1 spot - not what the actual search results are. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)