Talk:Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting

Latest comment: 14 years ago by in topic Deleting last paragraph


Stems from quote by the NBI, which I contacted. I have forwarded the e-mail to scoop for any accredited reporters to verify. OR is also the debunking of their entire press release basically. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Left a note on your talk page. Please check it out. Shutterbug (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should get this tag {{misleading}} Shutterbug (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you are exactly NPOV on this subject. ?? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is that supposed to mean? That documentation is not documentation anymore? Please explain. Shutterbug (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You launch in here, re-write the article completely. Some items, but even supposedly how Wikinews got the information, which I find hard to believe that you'd know how we got the information we got... And you stay it should be tagged as {{misleading}}. The purpose of Wikinews is to bring NPOV news, now I know that can be difficult. Your own user page says that you are as far from neutral as possibly can be on this subject. All I did was review the article, and I believe it was npov or as close as one can reasonably get. I'm not going to respond to anything else, or any of your other comments below. I'm sure the author of the article will be around in good time to read and respond to you. In the mean time, please remember to keep a level head. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe the "falsely" could be left out of the article title, I think it might not be very NPOV. Just Church of Scientology accuses internet group Anonymous of 2007 school shooting sounds much better to me. --Sampi (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think the title of the article should be changed. I also agree with above comments by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ShakataGaNai, I am very level headed despite of your little ad hominem slants. I understand that the "reviewer" of an article should have a look at the verifiability of information. And the sources given in the article are not supporting the text of the article. All I am trying to do is to change it to something that is closer to the facts. The headline is misleading. What is stated as a fact could have more research to it. As laid out. It would be nice if you could explain how you verified the article without the needed sources available. Did you do your own research? Shutterbug (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article clearly stated that Anonymous was not involved in the 2007 shooting. The NBI clearly states that. The Press release by the Church falsely accuses Anonymous of it. What more do you need? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, I'm not a Scientologist or anything but in my opinion the word falsely does entail some POV. The fact that the NBI has no evidence linking Anonymous to the shootings doesn't mean the accusations are without a doubt false. I think we should simply present the evidence as it appears, ie; the scientologists accuse annonymous, the nbi has no evidence of this, period. Also, if you look at the last paragraph of the article a clear POV is showed:

The accusations are part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs. Wikinews contacted the Church several times by e-mail for a statement, but the Church has yet to reply.

All I'm saying is that we report this from a NPOV so wikinews looks like a reliable news source. --Sampi (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last paragraph is actually their own policy: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I really didnt expect that. We should add that link to that citation, by the way :) I still disagree with the inclusion of the word falsely in the headline but since it passed a NPOV review from ShakataGaNai I don't feel particularly strong about it either. Thanks for keeping the conversation civil even when we disagree. --Sampi (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are most welcome. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No research and missing reliable information sourcesEdit

Auvinen himself was Anonymous and announced his murder spree on 4chan before he did it. His words[1]: "hey /b/ i'm going to kill people at jokela high school today in the name of anonymous" are obvious. /b/, a board on responded to his announcement with "DO IT FAGGOT" (same source). Per WIRED and other media " is the birthplace of Anonymous" and their "Project Chanology" that ran illegal attacks on the Church of Scientology in January 2008[2][3][4][5]. The article omits these relevant sources. As for what the Church of Scientology accuses Anonymous of in regards to Auvinen there is no source at all. All that is mentioned with is an anonymous article and a drug policy blog. I don't think that is good enough as a source. Anonymous claims that there have been flyers passed out at Anonymous "raids" that had the Auvinen accusation and far worse allegations against Anonymous. Those have not been countered by any voice in Anonymous since January 2008on Wikileaks but might be worth researching for an article. This article is premature, based on rumors, on unreliable (anonymous) sources and includes a pathetic statement that someone tried to contact the church of scientology "by email" but got ignored. Shutterbug (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NBI already stated that there is no connection between Anonymous and the 2007 shooting. The NBI is Finland's FBI. The post on 4chan you refer to was made at least 20 minutes+ after the first news report came onto the wires, and since he killed himself, it impossible he could have made that post. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now you are doing your research? Better late than never I guess. How come Anonymous still is celebrating him as "an finnish hero"? Shutterbug (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not all Anonymous. Its it a very bad version of Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere can edit it, if that country does not block you. This is a news site and I am a reporter. Is it not my job to do the research? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who researched the Auvinen case?Edit

CNN reported at the time that Chief Inspector Tero Haapala was researching the case. Maybe someone can contact him as the obvious expert. Who is "Tapio Ahola" and how does he know what he is talking about? Facts excluded in the article:

- Auvinen killed in the name of Anonymous [6]

- he announced that he would do so on /b/, the birthplace of Anonymous on [7]

It was not Auvinen himself, who posted this announcement on 4chan.
Auvinen had posted a video message on YouTube to announce this shooting and the picture that was posted on 4chan had been copied from the video. [8]
The archived 4chan thread [9] shows that the message was posted on 11/07/07(Wed)06:56:21.
The clock of 4chan's messageboard is adjusted to the timezone UTC-5, which you can check for yourself on Finland lies in the timezone UTC+2. This means that it was already 13:56:21 o'clock in Finland, when this was posted.
According to the police report [10] :"The Emergency Response Centre of Itä- and Keski-Uusimaa received the first call on the shooting
at Jokela High School on 7 November 2007 at 11:34. The call was made by a pupil of the school,.."
This means, that it had already happened at the time, the posting was made. Several posters in the 4chan thread had actually pointed this out themselves only 3 minutes later and linked to a press release about the shooting.
TomNewt0n (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- the copycat killer of last month, Matti Saari, might not have killed in the name of Anonymous but he per the Telegraph sure was friends with Auvinen when he went to kill 10 people in another Finnish school [11][12].

see my comment above. Auvinen had absolutely nothing to do with Anonymous.
TomNewt0n (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- It is true that Jarrod Willis was about to face court for 72 counts of criminal libel on the internet, not for his earlier Anonymous "hoax" when he produced about $100,000 costs in police action for his announcement on the Anonymous board /b/ on, stating "tommorrow a shooting will go down ... I will not stop until I am incapacitated or killed by a police officer" [13][14]. Shutterbug (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Willis made a hoax got caught, charges dropped. The charges he was awaiting stemmed from an e-mil which had absolutely nothing to do with the hoax he posted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be very interested to hear if the group Anonymous plans to sue the church of Scientology for Libel.....

Tomo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomokun (talkcontribs)

Deleting last paragraphEdit

""The accusations are part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs.""

i've deleted this portion of the article. unless the church has released a statement saying as much, it has no place in this article, as it is pure conjecture. - Imind (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above. The last paragraph is actually their own policy: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so it has obviously remained, given its protected status. however, and regardless of the church's policy, or how clear a case this might be, it should not be stated as fact. please, in the hope of maintaining wikinews as a respectable news outlet. remove this statement, or reword it. - Imind (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has actually been written about in the past by other larger media outlets. For example, TIME magazine: One of Hubbard's policies was that all perceived enemies are "fair game" and subject to being "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Those who criticize the church journalists, doctors, lawyers and even judges often find themselves engulfed in litigation, stalked by private eyes, framed for fictional crimes, beaten up or threatened with death. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that may be true, but please quote for me where any of these outlets pointed to a specific incident and said, "this was the result of the their "fair game" policy", without anything to substantiate it. no respectable news organiations would have anything to do with such wording. -Imind (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TIME is not respectable? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nobody said anything about TIME's respectability. mentioning the policy and stating that a particular incident is an example of it (w/o substantiation) are two different things. i have no problem with mentioning the policy, if it can be substantiated, and it sounds like it can. to mention this incident as a specific example of it is conjecture. - Imind (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Founder L. Ron Hubbard advocated a policy he called "Fair Game." "The purpose of the (law)suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win," Hubbard wrote in 1955. "The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway . . . will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." Stephen Kent, a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta who has written extensively about Scientology, said Fair Game sanctions Scientologists to crush its enemies. "It's a very effective program, in part, because at least according to older policies, if the organization can't find dirt, then it manufactures it," Kent said. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modification. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

was hubbard speaking specifically of this incident? obviously not. do we have verifiable evidence that this accusation mentioned in this article is a result of the church's "fair game" policy? answer this one question, please. - Imind (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BBC: Before he died, the church's founder L Ron Hubbard, declared that anyone who opposed the religion was "Fair Game" and could legitimately be "tricked, sued or lied to and destroyed". Mr Smith said: "This is the most clear 'Fair Game' smear tactic from the Scientologists. They have accused people of murder, before, they have falsified allegations against people, and now they are doing it against us." Cirt (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my friend, you are preaching to the choir. i have no doubt the church is employing this tactic, and you need not prove to me it exists.
as it is written it is better, but still suffers POV. - Imind (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is another really good reference for you to read: In a stinging decision, Judge Paul Breckenridge ruled against Scientology. "In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights," wrote Breckenridge, "the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." Cirt (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
again, i have no doubt of the church's motive, and you can link to 1000 instances of them using this policy in the past. it still doesn't change the fact that this instance, in this article, remains unverified. - Imind (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this instance, in this article, the assertion is not a far stretch by any means. As seen in multiple above cited sources. Here is another: With the Church's documented history of assailing dissenters through its fair game policy, and with legal threats delivered to a couple of New York Anons already, protesters try to keep their identities guarded-hence the Anonymous.. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that it is a stretch, at all, should warrant its removal from this article. these articles are for reporting facts, not almost facts or probably facts or even almost certainly facts. just facts. - Imind (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Hubbard died in 1986, I was called to his secret California ranch, arriving well before the authorities were called, to help design and implement the strategy to control the media, as well as to calm his followers. For my training, I studied and had secret directives from Hubbard and others on how to handle reporters, how to deal with police and government agencies, how to create front groups, and how to discredit or destroy a person or a group with Hubbard's "fair game" doctrine. It is not a stretch. At all. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CoS releases a statement that accuses Anonymous being behind a mass murder. Statement from Finnish authorities discredit the CoS statement. CoS has a history of making false statements in order to discredit dissenters. I say if CoS has a problem with the story, let them talk to Wikinews about it. Since they have not returned contact, as requested by Wikinews, obviously they have no issue. kamnet (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i'm sorry, but thats not how facts are verified. - Imind (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to the above discussion, note that similar allegations linking the 4chan community to the shooting in Finland have previously appeared in the mainstream Scandinavian press: see article in Dagbladet, with a 4chan screenshot naming Anonymous, article in Aftenposten. These are major Norwegian dailies. The Church could well argue that they merely repeated in good faith what reliable sources had already reported. Irrespective of the merits of these allegations, it does not seem like the Church fabricated them, as our article suggests. —Jayen466 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, the wording with "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" was cancelled more than 40 years ago. See – this wording was changed to the following: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org."

This cancellation occurred several months before the term "Fair Game" was canceled "for its bad PR effect", presumably leaving the policy content quoted here in the preceding paragraph in place. It is wrong to claim that a policy wording that was in force 40 years ago, for less than a year (namely until Hubbard realised that it was a really bad idea to say that), is still Scientology policy today. — 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article currently reads a nurse and a teacher at Joleka High School in Finland. It should say Jokela not Joleka. Could someone change this? Spiby (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting" page.