Talk:Church of Scientology does not see humor in website dedicated to Tom Cruise

Note http://www.scienTOMogy.info/threats.htm states; "This information is available so it can be referenced, copied and distributed freely in any medium - please do so with our full permission!" --$cienTOMogy


 * I think it's fairly obvious that this is a biased article. It should either be re-written or removed entirely. --Wolfrider 01:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How is this bias? It simply states the facts; website gets sued, where's the bias? --$cienTOMogy


 * Please explain what sorts of changes you suggest to remove its supposed bias. Is the wording biased?  Is the content biased?  Are you privy to information that suggests any of the facts reported on are incorrect?   Doesn't every news story have a point a view?   i.e.  "President Bush travels to California after Katrina Drowns New Orleans." or the other side "Feds blame Democrat Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana for Poor Communication".   It seems like a news source should lean towards presenting everyone's side, even if it isn't possible to do so in every single article.  If someone wants to release a news story explaining why Scientology sues so many people and interview spokespeople for the Church, then they are free to do so, right?  Vivaldi 03:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "...has taken a very dim view of a recently launched website by threatening legal action - even though the site simply links to the odd behaviour..." The phrasing of this line, and the article in general implies that you are defending the website, which is a non-neutral point of view. Another quote: "...simply expresses opinion and does not make any claims and clearly states it is not linked to the church." You only have a single source, and the URL is from the website in question. Not only that but the URL contains the word "threats", another biased point of view. Get a response from the Church, find other sites that carry the story. In addition the article is directly copied from the website. Regardless of whether or not you are given permission to distribute it, Wikinews requires that you do your own writing. At the moment this article is garbage. --Wolfrider 14:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The web site in question has a number links to humorous caricatures of Tom Cruise and scientology. The ridicule is not only par-for-the-course for Hollywood stars pushing their new age religious views but it is also well deserved in the case of Scientology.

Scientology is a movement that is increasingly proving to be deserving of being called a cult. Their use of barratry is documented "corporate policy" and they deserve to be scorned for their abuse of the legal system.

Bstender 16:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)i agree it is newsworthy, and i agree that it was NOT NPOV. i edited it and think it complies now. i thought the line about "full details at http... was channelling the POV too strongly, (as well as confirming that it is more of a press-release than an independent report) just my two-cents.  i would like to see it fly!

Oh please!
Scientology strikes again. Using the same legal and black PR noise to try and get articles that have what they see as "negative" read truthful and honest, out of the publics eye.

It is not the content of the site that is newsworthy - it's the fact the Church is demanding it be pulled down!

Its newsworthy and diserves to be written up, no doubt about it. - Nyarlathotep 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

question...
aren't those personality tests biased?

improving the quality of the article
i made a few changes - IMHO it seems like:
 * there is a cease-and-desist order - so better say this rather than something metaphorical like having the site pulled down
 * from a quick read of the link, there's a maximum fine of $US100,000, not in excess of $US100,000 (but i did read rather quickly - so maybe on a more careful reading you might find i'm wrong here)
 * the takes a dim view is an arbitrary stylistic choice clearly copy/pasted from the website - technically speaking, it could be arguably a violation of copyright. So why not use simpler words and avoid any risk of copyright violation? This is what i tried.

i haven't yet changed the title, but IMHO it should be changed from:


 * Church of Scientology does not see humor in website dedicated to Tom Cruise

to something like


 * Church of Scientology threatens satirical Tom Cruise website with cease-and-desist letters

How does this sound? Boud 00:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me!


 * The current headline a bit too colourful and does not relate the simple facts succintly. Should be simple and factual: e.g. "Church of Scientology threatens legal action against satirical Tom Cruise website". --59.167.46.224 09:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "website dedicated to Tom Cruise" is misleading - it is satirical. As for "does not see humor in website", that's clearly an assumption. The headline could be much better - using the title of the biased press release (the only source) is clearly biased. Additionally, I removed the inadvertent exageration of multiple lawyers and lawsuits, changed the wording concerning the fax(es?) and emails to clarify, placed a comma, and corrected the reference to $cienTOMmogy.info (the domain does not actually contain the $ character).

scientology
why is it that Scientology is always trying to stop people from understanding their religion. Could someone please put together a webvsite to show how many times they try to supress free speech, Mark. Please keep this site open it has helped many people including me the site is Scientomgy

Category

 * Please tighten the category from category:Religion, to category:Scientology. Wilhelm 05:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Website link
The website seems to have been shutdown/removed or something. It just goes to a page with Southpark ads by google or a similar source. 64.178.154.131 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Wilhelm 12:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)