Wikipedia, Spartacus and the JFK Assassination

[Ashton Gray]

I'm hoping Mr. Matthews will reply candidly and responsively to the issue of Wikipedia's condoned systematic sabotage of an article created there around the middle of last year, which is covered in the forum topic The Watergate "First Break-In" Dilemma.

In that case, a propaganda mechanic calling himself "Beek" appeared very shortly after that article on the alleged "first break-in" at the Watergate had been created in Wikipedia. No article at all on it had existed prior to its creation. "Beek" started industriously and systematically whitewashing the article from its entirely neutral POV to the 100% government approved (and 100% fraudulent) "Official Story."

Fortunately, the original article has been entirely preserved here, thanks to the good graces of the Education Forum, in the topic linked to above.

With the invaluable information contained therein, it has been proven beyond any reasonable or rational doubt that There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, yet the last time I checked, Wikipedia had completely reverted the factual and non-POV article to push the CIA-created fiction off on the world as "fact."

The same can be said for the Wikipedia "version" of the Pentagon Papers, when it also has been determined beyond any reasonable doubt by sound research that Daniel Ellsberg at all relevant times was a witting agent working in the interests of CIA, and that The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op. The last I bothered to look, Wikipedia merely peddles the romanticized fiction of a phony martyr, just the way CIA scripted it.

In another utterly scandalous case, Wikipedia allowed a lynch mob to eradicate entirely from existence a very thoroughly and well-referenced dispassionate Remote Viewing Timeline that first appeared on Wikipedia when no such factual timeline existed there. Fortunately, this knowledge, too, was rescued from the Wikipedia Censorship Machine and preserved for posterity. The site linked to in this paragraph originally had the full story of Wikipedia's witch-hunt of "Right Think" that attempted to completely erase that invaluable collection of references from the web, and I deeply regretted seeing that they took it down from the top of that page. It was such a brazen case of censorship that a senior editor at Wikipedia had forbidden anyone even to link to that timeline after those people put it up on the web.

What possible hubris can justify such a pervasive web presence as Wikipedia to style itself as a purveyor of fact when in some of the most crucial issues of history it stands as nothing but a mouthpiece for federally-funded fictions and the most vicious, unfounded censorship?

Whatever "success" Wikipedia and its management enjoy in these despotic attacks on knowledge, I direly hope they all are devout materialists. Then they have nothing to worry about in regard to their souls.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 18, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Matthews]

Nonetheless, I believe Wikipedia's editorial anonymity policy must be superceded if Wikipedia wishes to gain long-term credibility as a bona fide venture - a venture that at least attempts to uphold principles of accountability even though clandestine forces may get involved in the project (just as they are involved in academia and the mass media)

At the grand strategy level, Wikipedia is putting its faith in systematic referencing of all its content, to improve quality and thereby credibility. I can't see it moving to 'real names only' as a policy for editors. I use my real name, but I respect the reasons others have for not doing that.

[Charles Matthews]

Surely your editors, or those who might be thought of as censors should be required to, or at least carry enough weight, say that of a Nobel, to qualify as an overseer? I would be hard- pressed to believe, or even want to venture that for one moment you might have some high school student contributor, or "tabloid reader" making those kinds of calls, especially at a site advertizing itself as an internet encyclopedia. That would be a sham, wouldn't you say?

That is to misapprehend how it actually works. (It is all well and good to second-guess WP now there is such a thing, and probably inevitable tha people will assume that some other model would work just as well. Fact is that the 'proof of concept' was five years of the efforts of thousands of people in coming.)

No, WP operates with the flattest possible hierarchy compatible with getting the job done. It turned out that our expert on the English aristocracy was 16 years old and living in New Jersey. We have plenty of teenagers doing high-quality work. The initial postings do not equate with the final state of articles. There are concepts, such as 'soft security' and 'post-moderation', into which I could go, that explain why the unobvious solutions can work better than rigid doorkeeping.

[Charles Matthews]

<snip>

(1) Fortunately, the original article has been entirely preserved here, thanks to the good graces of the Education Forum, in the topic linked to above.

<snip>

(2) What possible hubris can justify such a pervasive web presence as Wikipedia to style itself as a purveyor of fact when in some of the most crucial issues of history it stands as nothing but a mouthpiece for federally-funded fictions and the most vicious, unfounded censorship?

(3) Whatever "success" Wikipedia and its management enjoy in these despotic attacks on knowledge, I direly hope they all are devout materialists. Then they have nothing to worry about in regard to their souls.

(1) All versions are anyway kept in the Page History (assuming the article was not deleted).

(2) I have commented before on the Disclaimer.

(3) Any chance of keeping religion out of this?

[Ashton Gray]

<snip>

(1) Fortunately, the original article has been entirely preserved here, thanks to the good graces of the Education Forum, in the topic linked to above.

<snip>

(2) What possible hubris can justify such a pervasive web presence as Wikipedia to style itself as a purveyor of fact when in some of the most crucial issues of history it stands as nothing but a mouthpiece for federally-funded fictions and the most vicious, unfounded censorship?

(3) Whatever "success" Wikipedia and its management enjoy in these despotic attacks on knowledge, I direly hope they all are devout materialists. Then they have nothing to worry about in regard to their souls.

(1) All versions are anyway kept in the Page History (assuming the article was not deleted).

(2) I have commented before on the Disclaimer.

(3) Any chance of keeping religion out of this?

(3) I always put someting on the table I'm willing to take off. And nudge it over kind of close. Look how cleverly you found it! It's off the table.

So now what's your responsive reply to the issues of material fact that I raised?

Ashton

Edited January 18, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Sid Walker]

Nonetheless, I believe Wikipedia's editorial anonymity policy must be superceded if Wikipedia wishes to gain long-term credibility as a bona fide venture - a venture that at least attempts to uphold principles of accountability even though clandestine forces may get involved in the project (just as they are involved in academia and the mass media)

At the grand strategy level, Wikipedia is putting its faith in systematic referencing of all its content, to improve quality and thereby credibility. I can't see it moving to 'real names only' as a policy for editors. I use my real name, but I respect the reasons others have for not doing that.

Ah well, Charles. I think we'll have to agree to differ on editorial anonymity.

Wikipedia shall, no doubt, keep its golden egg. I'll keep my suspicions.

In any event, thank you for responding to the points I raised.

I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy.

It gives new meaning to the notion of mis-spent youth

Edited January 18, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Terry Mauro]

Nonetheless, I believe Wikipedia's editorial anonymity policy must be superceded if Wikipedia wishes to gain long-term credibility as a bona fide venture - a venture that at least attempts to uphold principles of accountability even though clandestine forces may get involved in the project (just as they are involved in academia and the mass media)

At the grand strategy level, Wikipedia is putting its faith in systematic referencing of all its content, to improve quality and thereby credibility. I can't see it moving to 'real names only' as a policy for editors. I use my real name, but I respect the reasons others have for not doing that.

Ah well, Charles. I think we'll have to agree to differ on editorial anonymity.

Wikipedia shall, no doubt, keep its golden egg. I'll keep my suspicions.

In any event, thank you for responding to the points I raised.

I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy.

It gives new meaning to the notion of mis-spent youth

***********************************************************

"I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy."

I might be more impressed and less intrigued to find out if the 16 year old was a "gifted" child in his freshman year at Harvard, or even Columbia, rather than some high school student in New Jersey.

In any event, thank you for your time.

[Charles Matthews]

I might be more impressed and less intrigued to find out if the 16 year old was a "gifted" child in his freshman year at Harvard, or even Columbia, rather than some high school student in New Jersey.

In any event, thank you for your time.

You might be interested in a post today to the wikien mailing list: slightly edited it reads

"I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by "experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's all

good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me because it's pretty much the opposite of my past."

"People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic), I'm planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among other things - my job plays a big part in it too)."

"Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are not only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say teenagers, I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and insight more than any "expert"."

That's from an American (black) woman; the entire mail thread will appear archived on the Web shortly.

[Charles Matthews]

So now what's your responsive reply to the issues of material fact that I raised?

You don't exactly make it easy to reply: you probably mean the Wikipedia article [[Watergate burglaries]]. You probably mean User:Beek100, but you don't give the exact name. User:Huntley Troth hasn't edited enWP since May 2006, it seems.

There is a deletion debate with due process at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...iewing_Timeline.

With 1,500,000 articles on enWP, it is frankly more than a full time job to reply to everyone's beefs about everything.

[John Simkin]

No, WP operates with the flattest possible hierarchy compatible with getting the job done. It turned out that our expert on the English aristocracy was 16 years old and living in New Jersey. We have plenty of teenagers doing high-quality work. The initial postings do not equate with the final state of articles. There are concepts, such as 'soft security' and 'post-moderation', into which I could go, that explain why the unobvious solutions can work better than rigid doorkeeping.

It is indeed an interesting model of “further education”. It is one that I very much agree with. When I discovered the web in 1997 one of the first things I did was to create a website for my students. I taught in East Grinstead and all my students were given the task of writing an encyclopaedia entry on local history. The idea behind the project that anyone can become an "expert" if they are willing to put in the effort. This in itself builds academic confidence.

It was a great success and it became a useful teaching resource for those studying the history of East Grinstead. However, they all had to put their name to their work. They had no problem with that. In fact, they got a great deal of satisfaction out of it. I still remember a Y8 boy telling me how he had received a telephone call from his father who was living in Iran at the time, saying how proud he was of his son’s contribution to the encyclopaedia.

"I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by "experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's all good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me because it's pretty much the opposite of my past."

"People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic), I'm planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among other things - my job plays a big part in it too)."

"Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are not only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say teenagers, I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and insight more than any "expert"."

As someone who left school without qualifications, I fully identify with the comments made by the woman quoted above. However, I cannot see the reason why this woman would not want her name to appear on the site. In fact, it is an important part of the process. We need to take responsibility for our views. We need to build up the intellectual confidence to defend our opinions. That is what this forum is all about. That is why it is described as an "Education Forum". Hopefully Wikipedia will eventually mature into a truly educational organization.

[Ashton Gray]

So now what's your responsive reply to the issues of material fact that I raised?

You don't exactly make it easy to reply

The facts at issue are the stumbling block you're encountering. And the facts are that Wikipedia is publishing fiction and misrepresenting it as fact. I realize full well just how difficult it is to respond on the facts. That's why the Watergate forum here is pretty much dead as an anvil. The Watergate fiction has been stripped bare in the articles I've provided you links to. The fictions, by the way, were penned by CIA's E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy. By his own admission, Liddy actually dictated the purported "logs" that Alfred Baldwin claims to have type "almost verbatim" in real time—which is physically impossible for even an accomplished typist by actual test. That's just one example of the shoddy, absurd pulp spy fiction that your organization shamelessly spreads all over the world as "history."

So, no: it isn't easy to reply when trying to defend the indefensible. I feel your pain.

you probably mean the Wikipedia article [[Watergate burglaries]].

There were no "Watergate burglaries" (plural). That's the entire point: There was no "first break-in."

Apparently you don't yet comprehend even the most fundamental material fact at issue.

I've given you the link now for a second time to the article, with supporting articles linked therein, that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no "first break-in." There's an open invitation in that article, regarding a study of the supporting articles, as follows:

If you do just that minimal homework, and still would like to return here and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in"—as all of us were duped into believing three decades ago and have accepted as an article of faith ever since—I will be more than happy to debate and discuss any evidence you're able to scrape up in support of a "Watergate First Break-in."

Personally, I'd rather have the Augean stables to shovel out.

That's stood since 17 June 2006 and not one person has had the temerity to attempt it. Would you? I'll happily meet your there if you'd like to drag Wikipedia's version over and attempt to advocate for it.

Wikipedia has allowed the very title of the original Troth article to be changed so even the title now is a complete fiction. It's willful deceit. That's all.

And that's always indefensible. That's always difficult to answer.

The appropriate response from any responsible organization devoted to factual information would be alarm at learning that they were peddling fiction as fact and effective action to get it corrected—not blasé, supercilious one-liners.

I expect in response more blasé, supercilious one-liners.

Speaking of which: Regarding the Remote Viewing Timeline, you wrote:

There is a deletion debate with due process at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...iewing_Timeline.

One man's "due process" apparently is another man's lynch mob. I've seen that page of drooling hysteria, thanks. There isn't a single valid comment anywhere on it, and the timeline was deleted anyway. Not one single event in that timeline ever was documented by any person in that "due process" lynch mob as being in any slightest way false or inaccurate. The article had over 125 cites, far more than 90% of the drek that makes the cut at Wikipedia. Yet your "due process" page has plenty of completely false and unsupported claims that entries in the timeline were false, doesn't it?

The Inquisition had a "due process," too. If only Torquemada had been around to take lessons from that page you linked to.

With 1,500,000 articles on enWP, it is frankly more than a full time job to reply to everyone's beefs about everything.

Well, lord knows I wouldn't want these trivial matters to keep you a minute from making sure the speckle-breasted titwiller page over there isn't burdened with POV.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 18, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Matthews]

So now what's your responsive reply to the issues of material fact that I raised?

you probably mean the Wikipedia article [[Watergate burglaries]].

(1) There were no "Watergate burglaries" (plural). That's the entire point: There was no "first break-in."

Apparently you don't yet comprehend even the most fundamental material fact at issue.

<snip>

(2) Wikipedia has allowed the very title of the original Troth article to be changed so even the title now is a complete fiction. It's willful deceit. That's all.

And that's always indefensible. That's always difficult to answer.

The appropriate response from any responsible organization devoted to factual information would be alarm at learning that they were peddling fiction as fact and effective action to get it corrected—not blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(3) I expect in response more blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(4) Speaking of which: Regarding the Remote Viewing Timeline, you wrote:

There is a deletion debate with due process at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...iewing_Timeline.

One man's "due process" apparently is another man's lynch mob. I've seen that page of drooling hysteria, thanks. There isn't a single valid comment anywhere on it, and the timeline was deleted anyway.

You could usefully put the vitriol away, also.

(1) I was requesting the exact title of the article about which you had the beef, was all.

(2) Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.

(3) I can do defence-in-depth, too. I have found that less useful, at times.

(4) Actually there is plenty to be gleaned from the deletion discussion there. There was essentially no support for keeping the article as was. The issue of length was raised: at 145 K the article was four times as long as the level (32 K) where a warning comment kicks in on length. The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claims, and that the article was tarnished with 'original research' (WP term for synthesis going beyond the sourced material). One person was suggesting a rewrite, from scratch though.

In other words it didn't look like an encyclopedia article, to almost all the folks discussing it there; bear in mind that the AfD procedure is not delegated to anyone, it is open to the 'community' (as we say). Some suggestion that there was an encyclopedia article in there, struggling to get out. A skilful editor used to WP expectations on style and tone might have saved the day for that article.

General advice: learn the ropes at Wikipedia before getting to edits of contentious material. I did that for quite a time; and I'd had a year of solid editing at another wiki, before arriving at WP.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Charles Matthews

[John Simkin]

You could usefully put the vitriol away, also.

I agree. I hope you do not get frighten away from our forum by Ashton's rudeness.

[Ashton Gray]

(1) There were no "Watergate burglaries" (plural). That's the entire point: There was no "first break-in."

Apparently you don't yet comprehend even the most fundamental material fact at issue.

<snip>

(2) Wikipedia has allowed the very title of the original Troth article to be changed so even the title now is a complete fiction. It's willful deceit. That's all.

And that's always indefensible. That's always difficult to answer.

The appropriate response from any responsible organization devoted to factual information would be alarm at learning that they were peddling fiction as fact and effective action to get it corrected—not blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(3) I expect in response more blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(4) Speaking of which: Regarding the Remote Viewing Timeline...One man's "due process" apparently is another man's lynch mob. I've seen that page of drooling hysteria, thanks. There isn't a single valid comment anywhere on it, and the timeline was deleted anyway.

You could usefully put the vitriol away, also.

I keep the bottle of vitriol handy only as an antidote to condescension and apply it in direct proportion. I have exchanges with people here in this forum that one easily could mistake for an English garden tea. One lump or two?

(1) I was requesting the exact title of the article about which you had the beef, was all.

Okay. You seemed to know the article, since you knew the name of Beek100 (who worked with enormous industry and resources to sabotage it), and the name of the article has since been changed from its original "Watergate first break-in" (as I recall) to the fictional "Watergate burglaries." It has therefore been so thoroughly sabotaged and fictionalized that I feel certain any attempt to make it reflect fact is beyond hope at this point.

And it is fiction masquerading as "fact." And that's a fact. It's fully documented in these forums.

It also is my perception and belief that you will not address this on the facts, ever, but will steer the discussion toward such things as whether you had the right title or not—a complete go-nowehere merry-go-round, of course, since the title has been changed to propagate the CIA fiction.

(2) Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.

What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick.

(3) I can do defence-in-depth, too. I have found that less useful, at times.

It is a very handy evasion not to do so when a position is indefensible and facts are inarguable. I'll grant you that.

(4) Actually there is plenty to be gleaned from the deletion discussion there. There was essentially no support for keeping the article as was. The issue of length was raised: at 145 K the article was four times as long as the level (32 K) where a warning comment kicks in on length.

As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse.

The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claims

Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on.

You don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely.

and that the article was tarnished with 'original research' (WP term for synthesis going beyond the sourced material).

Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day.

Please post some kind of specific evidence for such sweeping indictments. Without evidence in support, such generalized smearing (gratuitously using words like "tarnished") is exactly the kind of kangaroo court mentality reflected on the page itself.

And as it stands, to this moment, not one valid reason for deleting the Remote Viewing Timeline ever was put forth there or here with a shred of factual evidence.

..bear in mind that the AfD procedure is not delegated to anyone, it is open to the 'community' (as we say).

Yeah, I know, that's the official line and you're sticking to it.

But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically:

1. Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats.
   
2. Generally, Wikipedia is rigged from the ground up with every kind of excuse and method to accomplish exactly that. The "Watergate First Break-In" article exposed that in truly hideous ways, as anyone who actually studies the history of that article can see.
   
3. Specifically on the Remote Viewing Timeline, it was far too extensive and well researched and documented for even the full-time efforts of an anonymous mechanic like "Beek100" (who, by the way, had very strange immediate access to an almost infinite number of rare sources) to be able to "fix" with mere edits. The only way out was to mark it for death, and whistle up enough cronies who would smear it with the exact kind of unsupported allegations that you've repeated here so that it would be erased out of existence (at least on Wikipedia). The pathetic exposure of the exact intention to do just that came when someone webbed it, and a "Wikipedian" editor had to go so far as to forbid anyone even linking to it. That was a truly embarrassing revelation about just exactly what was going on.
   
4. The real reason the timeline was erased and banned with censorship so egregious and blatant and heinous that I can't even think of a comparative is because it exposes incontrovertibly and inarguably that the CIA's remote viewing program was founded and developed in late 1972 and early 1973 by three high-level Scientology OTs working at the time on a Top Secret contract with CIA that was extended under various covers for over twenty-five years. And that's something that no one at Wikipedia could or would address on any factual basis, and is something that you cannot and will not address here or anywhere else, because the primary documentation comes from CIA's own documents and publications and cannot be argued on the facts, only on the basis of hysterical rants of denial against the truth such as are memorialized on the "discussion" page at Wikipedia.
   

And so it shall remain.

But even intellectual impotence and dishonesty won't stop or alter the truth.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 20, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[David G. Healy]

TOP POST

EXCELLENT post, Ashton -- E X C E L L E N T! How is that for a oneliner?

(1) There were no "Watergate burglaries" (plural). That's the entire point: There was no "first break-in."

Apparently you don't yet comprehend even the most fundamental material fact at issue.

<snip>

(2) Wikipedia has allowed the very title of the original Troth article to be changed so even the title now is a complete fiction. It's willful deceit. That's all.

And that's always indefensible. That's always difficult to answer.

The appropriate response from any responsible organization devoted to factual information would be alarm at learning that they were peddling fiction as fact and effective action to get it corrected—not blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(3) I expect in response more blasé, supercilious one-liners.

(4) Speaking of which: Regarding the Remote Viewing Timeline...One man's "due process" apparently is another man's lynch mob. I've seen that page of drooling hysteria, thanks. There isn't a single valid comment anywhere on it, and the timeline was deleted anyway.

You could usefully put the vitriol away, also.

I keep the bottle of vitriol handy only as an antidote to condescension and apply it in direct proportion. I have exchanges with people here in this forum that one easily could mistake for an English garden tea. One lump or two?

(1) I was requesting the exact title of the article about which you had the beef, was all.

Okay. You seemed to know the article, since you knew the name of Beek100 (who worked with enormous industry and resources to sabotage it), and the name of the article has since been changed from its original "Watergate first break-in" (as I recall) to the fictional "Watergate burglaries." It has therefore been so thoroughly sabotaged and fictionalized that I feel certain any attempt to make it reflect fact is beyond hope at this point.

And it is fiction masquerading as "fact." And that's a fact. It's fully documented in these forums.

It also is my perception and belief that you will not address this on the facts, ever, but will steer the discussion toward such things as whether you had the right title or not—a complete go-nowehere merry-go-round, of course, since the title has been changed to propagate the CIA fiction.

(2) Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.

What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick.

(3) I can do defence-in-depth, too. I have found that less useful, at times.

It is a very handy evasion not to do so when a position is indefensible and facts are inarguable. I'll grant you that.

(4) Actually there is plenty to be gleaned from the deletion discussion there. There was essentially no support for keeping the article as was. The issue of length was raised: at 145 K the article was four times as long as the level (32 K) where a warning comment kicks in on length.

As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse.

The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claims

Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on.

You don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely.

and that the article was tarnished with 'original research' (WP term for synthesis going beyond the sourced material).

Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day.

Please post some kind of specific evidence for such sweeping indictments. Without evidence in support, such generalized smearing (gratuitously using words like "tarnished") is exactly the kind of kangaroo court mentality reflected on the page itself.

And as it stands, to this moment, not one valid reason for deleting the Remote Viewing Timeline ever was put forth there or here with a shred of factual evidence.

..bear in mind that the AfD procedure is not delegated to anyone, it is open to the 'community' (as we say).

Yeah, I know, that's the official line and you're sticking to it.

But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically:

1. Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats.
   
2. Generally, Wikipedia is rigged from the ground up with every kind of excuse and method to accomplish exactly that. The "Watergate First Break-In" article exposed that in truly hideous ways, as anyone who actually studies the history of that article can see.
   
3. Specifically on the Remote Viewing Timeline, it was far too extensive and well researched and documented for even the full-time efforts of an anonymous mechanic like "Beek100" (who, by the way, had very strange immediate access to an almost infinite number of rare sources) to be able to "fix" with mere edits. The only way out was to mark it for death, and whistle up enough cronies who would smear it with the exact kind of unsupported allegations that you've repeated here so that it would be erased out of existence (at least on Wikipedia). The pathetic exposure of the exact intention to do just that came when someone webbed it, and a "Wikipedian" editor had to go so far as to forbid anyone even linking to it. That was a truly embarrassing revelation about just exactly what was going on.
   
4. The real reason the timeline was erased and banned with censorship so egregious and blatant and heinous that I can't even think of a comparative is because it exposes incontrovertibly and inarguably that the CIA's remote viewing program was founded and developed in late 1972 and early 1973 by three high-level Scientology OTs working at the time on a Top Secret contract with CIA that was extended under various covers for over twenty-five years. And that's something that no one at Wikipedia could or would address on any factual basis, and is something that you cannot and will not address here or anywhere else, because the primary documentation comes from CIA's own documents and publications and cannot be argued on the facts, only on the basis of hysterical rants of denial against the truth such as are memorialized on the "discussion" page at Wikipedia.
   

And so it shall remain.

But even intellectual impotence and dishonesty won't stop or alter the truth.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 20, 2007 by David G. Healy