Talk:Hackers attack Church of Scientology website

Active discussions

I think we shouldEdit

I think we should probably have a better source then that. People sometimes say stuff like that without it being true. Bawolff 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence develop. I intend to wait until there is more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Shutr, from ihaveameme here. Any chance you could put my URL next to the quote? I know thats just shameless self promotion and either way its quite nice to see my writing there. I'm not particularly bothered by the admission to gigaloading. In my opinion, this is Fair Game. Aha ha. (preceding unsigned comment by


Have had a few people tell me they are getting the message "The word Scientology means search for truth..." when the site does where to go or click. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reached the site. DoS over. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the article itself look fine - but I'm not sure it's over yet - it is still loading very slowly for me... Wilhelm 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
I just got an error trying to load it. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I had another stab; still works fine for me, including navigating round the site. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not working for me, maybe its a location thing?? --MarkTalk to me 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Text loaded, but not the images...very slow --Jcart1534 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I just tried again right now, I'm getting similar to you - very very slow loading, and no images. Wilhelm 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • (outdent) I just tried to load just now to see if it's working - couldn't get anything to load or appear on the screen at all. Is anyone else getting the same thing? Wilhelm 22:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Update, tried to load at a different computer at a different location - still not getting anything at all, no images, nothing, so I'm going to update the article. Wilhelm 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
      • Update, we are now clearly into January 21, and the site is still not loading at all. As this is now past the date of publication for this article, I think it's fine to leave it as is. If there are future breaking developments with enough sources to write an article, that info could go in a new article. Wilhelm 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Load of links...Edit

Load of links for people who have more time are below

--MarkTalk to me 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Gotta run out for a short bit, if no one else works on these, I'll work it in to the article within a coupla hours or so. Wilhelm 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Response: First two sources you mentioned aren't really that great, third is already sourced in the article. Wilhelm 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

More sourcesEdit

Anyone finding any more/better sources of info? Wilhelm 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC).


Totally off the mark with "Anonymous", it's not a person, it's just a *chan meme for pretty much anybody and everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It may be both, but in this case it refers to the first user that made the initial posting, whoever that "Anonymous" was, we may never know. Wilhelm 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
Hello, my name is Anonymous. It's not a meme, it's an identity. You are Anonymous. I am Anonymous. I happen to be an Anonymous who runs the Insurgent Wiki though; just wanted to point out it's a wiki for raids OF 4chan. We give the resources for 4chan and our /b/rothers to use. 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not true. Much confusion has arisen due to this simple misunderstanding. The culprit was an Ebaumsworld user whose handle happens to be "Anonymous", not a group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New sources, post article's publicationEdit

  1. ‘Anonymous’ warning to Scientologists, p2pnet news
  2. Has the Scientology site been hacked?, p2pnet news
  3. RIAA wiped off the net: Hacktivists at work, The Register
  4. SCIENTOLOGY VS. THE INTERNET: Why Kids On The Internet Are Scientology's Most Powerful Enemy,
  5. Internet Group Anonymous Declares "War on Scientology", Press Release, Chan Enterprises
  6. Anonymous on Fox 11, FOX News, MyFOX Los Angeles
  7. Message to Scientology, YouTube, from "Anonymous"
  8. Scientology Turns Into A Traffic Magnet, WebProNews

Interesting stuff, too bad it's now way after January 20th, perhaps if more info comes out about this it could be a brief new article. Wilhelm 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm is correct here; Wikinews has a secondary purpose to just writing news which is to preserve a record of what was known at the time. If you look at most of our older articles you'll see they're protected - forever. Procedures exist to get spelling and other non-content errors fixed but the official policy is that when something is a week old it gets dumped in the archive.
We use a template, {{breaking}} as a way to publish and indicate the story may change, but this shouldn't stay on a story much beyond its publication date.
This article - unfortunately - was a target for a lot of vandalism and god-awful grammar. (Like wot mine sometimes is ;) ). It got semi-protected some time after publication to prevent people putting in ZOMG!!!!11!!!! This is teh funniest" or similar.
If it is wrong about ebaumsworld and the source of the original meme then the problem has been that the people who want to make the case don't do it very effectively.
In any case, I think this is the first time I've seen people on the comments page saying they're from alt.religion.scientology - despite earlier stories. Those guys have been exposing CoS for years. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The "ebaumsworld" thing is something that the Project Chanology anons are saying to try to divert attention from their site. The entry for ebaumsword on the Insurgency Wiki says quite simply "EBAUMS ALWAYS DID IT." So I would not take those anon claims too seriously... Wilhelm 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Return to "Hackers attack Church of Scientology website" page.