Issue with Jediism article on Wikipedia

The 16,000 members figure, as I said, is currently being investigated and verified. We are checking the activity of every member as they enter the new database - being a member does not mean they have to be regularly on the COJ forums. I myself do not log in very often!

Daniel is the most visible face of the COJ, yes. He has the largest public exposure - I never stated otherwise.

By 'you', if you mean the COJ, no we would not - as I said, we did not give funding for these legal issues. We had to register as a business in order to register as a charity. It also makes the taxman a lot happier when it comes to checking the income and outgoings of the organisation.

Xan, your message came across to me as negative. I shall cease to argue any longer - we are here to make peace and establish a community free of prejudice, not stir up more arguments. Lets not use the forums John kindly created for us for arguing, but instead their intentional use - discussing the Force.

May the Force be with you,

Like the other thread - this one is degenerating into a mixed bag of cats n dogs aka a fiasco

Hurling insults etc - sorry but enough so until everyone calms down - this thread is LOCKED

Attempts to further this in public will be deleted

This and other threads will be unlocked when folks calm down

Thank you and sorry for any inconvienience

Xan wrote:

I'm not to sure if this is a recent development but it's one that is rather concerning to the community. But it appears that the Jediism article on Wikipedia now only links to the Church of Jediism, ie the group run by Daniel Jones (the Tesco affair,bin bag Darth Vader). Now as this affects not just TOTJO but all Jedi sites on the web. I think TOTJO does 2 things. One constantly place the link to TOTJO back on the article and 2,contact Mr.Jones and company and let them know that they are not the ONLY resource on the web and that this type of tactic only proves how desperate they are.

It's time to fight back and make your voice heard.

My heart's with you but if we keep putting the link back we'll be tagged as vandals. The problem is we have to be mentioned in an independent source like a newspaper article or a book. I believe I have found an article which will get us in that link section.

As for Jones & Company, they're doing such a good job of destroying themselves we'd best spend that energy improving ourselves and our site.

God knows the site needs a makeover.

I understand why the concern over wiki but i dont understand the perceived urgency.

Wiki is known as a somewhat 'mediocre' source of material - its hardly Encyclopaedia Britannica is it.

Let whoever have their little moment of fame on there - because I certainly dont want to be associated with them.

MTFBWY - A