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...

DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) 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)

• 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

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)

Comment

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)

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. <shrug> 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)

• Done, 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

• Scientology under digital assault by web vigilantes, National Post, Shane Dingman, January 24, 2008.

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)

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

"Message to Scientology", January 21, 2008

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...

Quote

---

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 Brianmc (talk · contribs), 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. Gopher65_talk 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. Gopher65_talk 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. --Skenmy ^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)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)