Sure, it could be a coincidence. Probably is, in fact. It's just hard to find a source for that 1991 interview.
John Lear Censorship?, page 2
reply posted on 21-6-2007 @ 10:16 AM by Strawberry_Icecream
John Lear Censorship? What an ideal forum thread to write my message in…
Right now I am frustrated!
In November 2005 I wrote the John Lear article on Wikipedia. To my joy when typing in 'John Lear' in Google this article was pretty much the first page to show up.
Now I have just found out that Wikipedia have deleted the entire article! A couple of months ago I specially added a bibliography of sources that I used so that a deletion due to unsourced information would never occur…
Reasons for deletion
What they wrote about John Lear is an absolute disgrace! Close-minded, disrespectful and offensive!
“The sources given on the page are not what I would consider reliable, and I am unable to find reliable ones in my own search.”
Try harder then!
At least the article is still in the Google cache for anybody wishing to read it. Thank you to the other users who added to and updated the article over time.
Cheers and huge respect to John Lear!
[edit on 21-6-2007 by Strawberry_Icecream]
Right now I am frustrated!
In November 2005 I wrote the John Lear article on Wikipedia. To my joy when typing in 'John Lear' in Google this article was pretty much the first page to show up.
Now I have just found out that Wikipedia have deleted the entire article! A couple of months ago I specially added a bibliography of sources that I used so that a deletion due to unsourced information would never occur…
Reasons for deletion
What they wrote about John Lear is an absolute disgrace! Close-minded, disrespectful and offensive!
“The sources given on the page are not what I would consider reliable, and I am unable to find reliable ones in my own search.”
Try harder then!
At least the article is still in the Google cache for anybody wishing to read it. Thank you to the other users who added to and updated the article over time.
Cheers and huge respect to John Lear!
[edit on 21-6-2007 by Strawberry_Icecream]
reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 05:53 AM by Strawberry_Icecream
Absolutely it would IronDogg! Thanks for the response guys. Yeah it's ridiculous that the article was removed ONLY because of people's prejudice
against the subject matter (their 'reasons' are full of cheap jibes). It was not like the article was a poorly written stub. When I did try to cite
references in the article they were removed as they were 'unreliable'.
How could a person unfamiliar with the UFO field determine that? Some of the videos/interviews that I referenced are obscure and hard to find so of course those Wikipedians are not going to find them by casually trawling Google.
The John Lear article had also been up for deletion once before. I of course removed the notice but then my IP address was blocked by Wikipedia without warning.
So the Bob Lazar article can stay, the George Knapp article can stay, but the John Lear article isn't allowed in? He was at the centre of the entire Area 51 story as you certainly all know! It does not make sense. Now the Ufology section has a huge hole in it.
By the way, the '1991' John Lear interview that you are all discussing on this thread is from 'UFOs & Area 51: Secrets of the Black World' by 2000 Film Productions. It was a 1995 German production directed by Michael Hesemann. It was actually one of my references for the article.
'UFOs & Area 51: Secrets of the Black World' is without doubt one of the best Area 51 documentaries ever made. Even Glenn Campbell agrees (read his review) even though he was the only Area 51 researcher who was not included in the documentary due a disagreement with Hesemann.
How could a person unfamiliar with the UFO field determine that? Some of the videos/interviews that I referenced are obscure and hard to find so of course those Wikipedians are not going to find them by casually trawling Google.
The John Lear article had also been up for deletion once before. I of course removed the notice but then my IP address was blocked by Wikipedia without warning.
So the Bob Lazar article can stay, the George Knapp article can stay, but the John Lear article isn't allowed in? He was at the centre of the entire Area 51 story as you certainly all know! It does not make sense. Now the Ufology section has a huge hole in it.
By the way, the '1991' John Lear interview that you are all discussing on this thread is from 'UFOs & Area 51: Secrets of the Black World' by 2000 Film Productions. It was a 1995 German production directed by Michael Hesemann. It was actually one of my references for the article.
'UFOs & Area 51: Secrets of the Black World' is without doubt one of the best Area 51 documentaries ever made. Even Glenn Campbell agrees (read his review) even though he was the only Area 51 researcher who was not included in the documentary due a disagreement with Hesemann.
reply posted on 6-7-2007 @ 01:12 AM by morpheus40
The John Lear Wikipedia article was removed for several valid reasons. You can read the exact details here.
Articles for deletion - John Lear
I only see one mildly offensive comment in that section.
The specific reasons were:
1. No verifiable sources were quoted. Remember, you can't use original research which is probably why earlier references were deleted.
2. Lear did not pass the notability test.
3. The article was proposed for deletion and a vote was held over a period of several days. The consensus was that the article should be deleted.
If you go around removing article deletion tags without following the proper procedure, then your IP will be blocked. Likewise, if you recreate the article your IP will also be blocked.
Your option is to ask for a deletion review.
Edited to add: The URL posting on this forum makes Wikipedia editing look easy!
[edit on 6-7-2007 by morpheus40]
Articles for deletion - John Lear
I only see one mildly offensive comment in that section.
The specific reasons were:
1. No verifiable sources were quoted. Remember, you can't use original research which is probably why earlier references were deleted.
2. Lear did not pass the notability test.
3. The article was proposed for deletion and a vote was held over a period of several days. The consensus was that the article should be deleted.
If you go around removing article deletion tags without following the proper procedure, then your IP will be blocked. Likewise, if you recreate the article your IP will also be blocked.
Your option is to ask for a deletion review.
Edited to add: The URL posting on this forum makes Wikipedia editing look easy!
[edit on 6-7-2007 by morpheus40]
reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 12:27 PM by Strawberry_Icecream
Thank you for the pretentious lecture on Wikipedia's rules and policy. You wouldn't be gloating about the John Lear article being deleted now would
you?: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am aware of Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. I linked to it earlier in the thread.
1. Verifiable sources were quoted. Earlier references were removed only because one user thought they were unreliable. There was no original research in the article. I added a bibliography of sources where the information could be found, but I guess the Wikipedians gave up when they couldn't verify them via their expert methods (i.e. Google searches).
2. Five people with no knowledge and contempt for the field determined that John Lear is not notable enough. Well at least you seem to think that John Lear is notable (or you wouldn't be writing posts on this forum).
3. The article was proposed for deletion by someone with no idea about the subject matter. Any user can plod along and place deletion tags on articles.
Don't worry, when the article is back up you can be one of the users who can delete it again.
I am aware of Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. I linked to it earlier in the thread.
1. Verifiable sources were quoted. Earlier references were removed only because one user thought they were unreliable. There was no original research in the article. I added a bibliography of sources where the information could be found, but I guess the Wikipedians gave up when they couldn't verify them via their expert methods (i.e. Google searches).
2. Five people with no knowledge and contempt for the field determined that John Lear is not notable enough. Well at least you seem to think that John Lear is notable (or you wouldn't be writing posts on this forum).
3. The article was proposed for deletion by someone with no idea about the subject matter. Any user can plod along and place deletion tags on articles.
Don't worry, when the article is back up you can be one of the users who can delete it again.
reply posted on 11-7-2007 @ 12:03 PM by Strawberry_Icecream
Cheers for posting this link Lexion! I missed this when it was on: John Lear: Secrets
Revealed
An entertaining show, and yet another source that verifies some of the information I compiled for the article.
Correction: On Pt.6 I'm not sure where Richard Hoagland got his information from on the Australian population. He states "13 million people, and most of them are Aborigines". Australia has a population of over 21 million (90% of European ancestry - the majority Anglo-Celtic). There are only 500,000 Indigenous Australians. Though the Australian outback has arguably been a testing ground for exotic beam weapons before, so why not something else?
An entertaining show, and yet another source that verifies some of the information I compiled for the article.
Correction: On Pt.6 I'm not sure where Richard Hoagland got his information from on the Australian population. He states "13 million people, and most of them are Aborigines". Australia has a population of over 21 million (90% of European ancestry - the majority Anglo-Celtic). There are only 500,000 Indigenous Australians. Though the Australian outback has arguably been a testing ground for exotic beam weapons before, so why not something else?
reply posted on 14-7-2007 @ 10:34 PM by morpheus40
Originally posted by Strawberry_Icecream
To my knowledge nobody has attempted to recreate the article.
Check the article log's.
If you think John Lear is fascinating maybe you would like to help verify his claims instead of badgering us?
I'd love to, but I'm too busy researching Howard Menger. He's much more interesting than Lear!
en.wikipedia.org...
reply posted on 20-7-2007 @ 10:36 AM by Strawberry_Icecream
Vtype - Well said! Whereabouts did you submit your complaint on Wikipedia? Are you expecting a reply at all? I guess that one of the comments on the
discussion page is from you too (with a link to The Lear Gene article). With poor attitudes of some
of the editors it seems that we are up against it!
I really need to sit down and go through The Lear Gene article properly and add some more information to the deleted article (or maybe you can do it if you wish)...
John Lear himself probably has numerous articles from magazines, aviation journals, newspaper clippings about his own records and achievements (not to mention all those certificates). I wonder if John would ever post some of them here? Would be great to see them and a huge slap in the face to those Wikipedian troublemakers...
Horrificus - Yeah I saw those 'Entire post removed by staff' messages and wondered what went on! It's the first time I've seen entire posts banned like that before.
[edit on 20-7-2007 by Strawberry_Icecream]
I really need to sit down and go through The Lear Gene article properly and add some more information to the deleted article (or maybe you can do it if you wish)...
John Lear himself probably has numerous articles from magazines, aviation journals, newspaper clippings about his own records and achievements (not to mention all those certificates). I wonder if John would ever post some of them here? Would be great to see them and a huge slap in the face to those Wikipedian troublemakers...
Horrificus - Yeah I saw those 'Entire post removed by staff' messages and wondered what went on! It's the first time I've seen entire posts banned like that before.
[edit on 20-7-2007 by Strawberry_Icecream]
Get ready to find yourself in a whirlwind of other worldly activity
Posted 17 days ago with 50 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 50 member flags
Crop Circles Explained - Hidden Messages From Aliens & ET\'s ?
Posted 13 days ago with 24 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 24 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Armed DHS Guards Protect IRS From Tea Party Protesters...
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 20 flags
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 20 flags
FBI kills man during questioning over Boston marathon attack
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 19 flags
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 19 flags
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 13 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich
Breaking Alternative News: 11 hours ago, 886 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 11 hours ago, 886 replies
Armed DHS Guards Protect IRS From Tea Party Protesters...
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 83 replies
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 83 replies
Florida Cheerleader Denies Felony Charge for Lesbian Relationship
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 66 replies
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 66 replies
California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills
Breaking Political News: 11 hours ago, 51 replies
Breaking Political News: 11 hours ago, 51 replies
FBI kills man during questioning over Boston marathon attack
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 45 replies
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 45 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.171 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.171 seconds
