Talk:Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

This reminds me of[edit]

This reminds me of my friend Graeme telling me that the furry rodent in the plastic box was a "Syrian hamster". Didn't look Syrian to me... It didn't have mini sticks of dynamite strapped to its chest. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian, this is not what the "collaboration" page is for. Please use the opinion page for commentary. --ANonHubbard - (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't try and teach the crocodile how to swim. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OR[edit]

I added the OR tag due to reliance on primary sources. I am going to go look for some other possible secondary sources. Cirt - (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible commentary[edit]

Threads to follow for possible commentary/snippets:

Both threads appear to contain comments from both critics of Scientology and supporters/Scientologists, or at least one Scientology supporter/Scientologist who goes by "Tom N" or "Tom Newton". Cirt - (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

There was a Deletion request which led to a discussion of whether or not to delete this article, and the result was "Speedy keep." - The discussion is here. Cirt - (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request was reopened, and then later closed again with same result, "Speedy keep.". The discussion is here. Cirt - (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Digg effect[edit]

I apologize to Wikileaks now for bringing down their servers because of digg.com. At 3:30 a.m. eastern time, Wikinews went on the front page of digg. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews article hits front page of Digg.com while undergoing Deletion request[edit]

This article hit the front page of Digg.com at 07:39 UTC (currently still at the front page with 601 Diggs) while in the midst of an ongoing deletion request at Wikinews:Deletion requests. Can anyone say Streisand effect? (Also posted to Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous) I think that this is a most interesting first for Wikinews. Cirt - (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews articles that made front page of Digg.com
  1. "Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence"" — Wikinews, June 29, 2007 - Digg.com link
  2. ""Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"" — Wikinews, January 23, 2008 - Digg.com link
  3. "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents" — Wikinews, April 7, 2008 - Digg.com link - also believed to be the first time that a Wikinews article made the front page of Digg.com, while also undergoing a Deletion request discussion. Cirt - (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Blog exposure[edit]

Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks, World Student Press Agency - basically a mirror, but they added a neat subtitle: "Church flexes it’s muscles over leaked documents". Cirt - (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources that came out about this, post this article's publish[edit]

Listing sources that covered this news topic, post this article's publish, here below. Cirt - (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote a portion from this next latest source here below, because it is worth noting here, especially in light of the closed deletion discussion for this article:

It's been a busy week both here and abroad on the IT front with the Yahoo!-Microsoft stoush becoming surreal, Telecom New Zealand getting real and (our most popular story for the week) Wikileaks picking a fight with those scary Scientologists. [...] The other big story for us was the Church of Scientology threatening Wikileaks over the publication of secret church documents. Okay, it's a long bow to say this is IT, aside from the fact it involves a website and church lawyers themselves call the documents "confidential Advanced Technology". But you readers loved it nonetheless.

So according to m-net, their, quote, "most popular story for the week" was their piece on Scientology/Wikileaks (cited above from April 8) - and yet this Wikinews article beat both The Register and m-net to it - published April 7. Cirt - (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We beat everyone to this story. Wikileaks gave us a heads up before the letter was even on their site. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Register kinda ripped us off :( DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe sorta take that as a compliment to your writing. Cirt - (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Came up in a news search, cites Wikinews (this article). Cirt - (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology members would pass along that more than 600 pages of their most sacred (and secret) religious documents had been posted there too. [...] Even the case of posting Scientology's private information is a clear judgment call: Does the public stand to benefit from the outing of the organization's most closely guarded secrets? Who says?

An interesting report on this in the Los Angeles Times. Cirt - (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentions Wikinews and Wikimedia Foundation, related to a different article, as well as Wikileaks. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)