From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, stored on a high school blackboard, and every kid has an eraser and a piece of chalk. Guess whose stuff stays on the blackboard?" Ghostofnemo

After other editors repeatedly deleted several of my relevant, NPOV, and reliably-sourced contributions from articles, I started making a list of what I thought were questionable deletions on my userpage. But that list was deleted by Wikipedia administrators. Then I put a link to the history of my userpage, showing the questionable deletions, and they even deleted the list from my userpage history, like something out of Orwell's "1984":

Whoops, that page has been deleted! You can't even go back in the history now and see what I was complaining about. You can't see what the dispute was about, or compare my edits to the reliable sources I used as references. The deletions must have been pretty embarrassing, eh?

If you want a taste of what it's like to edit controversial articles on Wikipedia, you can check out:

And the "Illogical policies" discussion is here now:

There was a brief period when Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit, but no longer. The rules never meant anything much - the censors are not protecting Pete Bethune over the fact(?) that the Japanese hooded him, nor are they much protecting the Japanese police and judicial system. They're protecting their own prejudices and making sure you don't add anything. There are other places where you can share the information which was deleted from your UserPage. (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It could be bloated egos, but there seems to be a clear pattern to the deletions - information about controversial topics sensitive to the U.S. or its allies. But the editors involved seem a bit too clever and well organized to be random ditto-heads. They don't just delete stuff, they make ridiculous wikilawyering arguments to justify themselves or use clever ploys to avoid resolution. If you read this [Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia] you'll see that Wikipedia involvement isn't in the realm of the impossible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Please note the references cited, and that all of this reliably sourced, neutral point of view material has been completely deleted from the article:

Another example from a different article (there seems to be a pattern). First, instead of correcting a supposedly minor point, they delete the entire entry and all the supporting references:

Then, instead of discussing it on the article talk page, they post a note on YOUR talk page:

Then, when you make the correction they claimed they wanted but didn't make, and you think you've responded to their objection, they delete it again or delete your reliable sources or in someway tamper with your contribution in a way that seems illogical or goes against Wikipedia policy:

After a bit of discussion in which they argue that sources like the BBC and The Washington Post are unreliable, that it's actually ok to rely only on primary (government) sources, and claim that this is Wikipedia policy, they threaten to report you for... trying to follow the rules! You can point out that the policies they are quoting don't say what they claim they say, but that doesn't help.

After which they once again delete the reliable sources:

Just a little suspicious, eh?

Another example of neutral, reliably sourced, relevant information being deleted from articles, again from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, this time regarding the Able Danger program. Please note the long list of reliable sources cited:

And another Wikipedia disconnect from reality: Ronald Reagan was never widely known as "Ronald Raygun":

And why is it a problem to note Noble Peace Prize recipients who met untimely deaths?

Here we go again: the U.S. government claimed it had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but FBI director Robert Mueller testified that the FBI was warned by one of its agents that an al-Queda suspect might be planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. This information, which appears in a referenced CNN article, has been repeatedly deleted from the September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories article: One of the deletors claims I'm doing original research!

Entire section of Police state deleted as....original research. Note the references! Note also that the editor who deleted this is not only claiming that only scholarly sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, but also did not, as an alternative, find sources he or she felt were better quality. I just get the impression that someone doesn't want a factual yardstick of what a police state is available to people interested in objectively evaluating governments. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC) First it was "original research". Now it's "lack of consensus". I've seen this in enough articles to know that no matter what, some things just won't be allowed to appear in Wikipedia: Here is a deletion of freedom rankings by various reliable sources - note in this version of the article, in the "History of Usage" section, the completely unsourced assertion that "Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time." You just have to wonder why this kind of statement is allowed to stand, but a reliably sourced, neutrally worded list of objective criteria as to whether or not a state is a police state must be immediately deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that Winston Churchill co-ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs? Me either. My contribution to this article was that it was Truman who gave the orders (before my edit, there was nothing in the article about who actually ordered the dropping of the bombs), and I finally had six supporting references, because it kept getting deleted. But even with six reliable sources that said it was Truman who gave the orders to drop the bombs, my contribution was deleted, and replaced by the interesting hypothesis that Churchill co-authorized the bombings. However, not a single reference was supplied to support this: And here is the diff of the deletion: Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Three reliable sources pointing to CIA involvement in the arrest of Nelson Mandela, but deleted by an editor without a user page: Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time trying to convince editors at Police state that when Freedom House uses the term "unfree states" it is a polite, academic way of saying "police states". They disagreed (!), but this meant that the Freedom House map, which shows "free" and "unfree" states, and which has been in the article for a long time, needed to be deleted from the article. And it was. Note the reason for deletion: Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How Wikipedia actually works: This discussion is closed, and if I go to another venue, I'm guilty of "forum shopping". Catch-22, and the deletions stand I guess. Note that there is a consensus (except for me) that the terms "police state" and "unfree state" are clearly, obviously, unquestionably NOT synonymous! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Former CIA director says Edward Snowden should be hung, not pardoned. Can't have that in the Edward Snowden article: Some countries won't extradite you if you face the death penalty.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I proposed that deleting reliably sourced, relevant, neutral material from articles be forbidden as a form of "reverse original research". Of course that wasn't going to happen. Interesting discussion though, but I was unable to reply before the discussion was cut off. One participant claimed that I try to push conspiracy theories, without noting that the edits he mentioned were to conspiracy theory articles! Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

We can't have any eyewitness reports of encounters with extraterrestrial life, even if they have been covered by the mainstream press, in the article about extraterrestrial life. Not even if 20 former government and military personnel come forward at a press conference: Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Another UFO related deletion: Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted from the article Minerva, from the section entitled "Use by societies and governments": Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted from the article Tokyo Two, which is about two anti-whaling activists arrested for trying to expose corruption in Japan's "scientific" whaling program: Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleted from the article 2014 NYPD officer killings: There is info about protests in the article, but info about police counter-protests has been deleted, with one editor claiming it is "false NPOV" to mention both! and the fact that teh protests were also about Tamir Rice Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleted from American Left - the Green Party of the United States is not part of the American left?: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Greece's SYRIZA party is not a Marxist party, no matter who says otherwise: Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted twice from the article Chris Kyle, regarding reports that he bragged about shooting looters in New Orleans: the "owners" of the article will not even let another editor put a WP:POV tag on the article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Information about Bernie Sanders has been deleted multiple times from the article American Left because he is not a notable person! Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)