It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:30 PM
As far as citations -- wasn't one of our members highlighted by an external organization this year as an example of domestic terrorism or extreme thought that should be regulated? Don't remember the specifics - but it was a far left organization that put it out.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM
To find a bunch of ATS external mentions search on this site for "ATS mentioned" with quotes. Includes Scientific American, MSNBC, C2C, etc. I could find what I was mentioning above but the organization had taken a quote from one of the threads and used it as an example of extreme speech.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Iced Kola

The old "Above Top Secret" page was deleted in a proposed deletion. The deletion was approved by an administrator after 5 days, so obviously no one disagreed enough to contest the deletion. It was deleted under the reason "No evidence that this Internet forum meets our website notability guidelines". Keyword here is "evidence": there was probably no proof of notability. You can't just make an article about a website that sounds notable. You need references and specific points within the article that show its importance. It's exactly how you need to back up your words here on ATS.

Thank you Iced Kola - this is exactly what I thought as well. No conspiracy here.

For future reference (and in the case if the new ATS page does get deleted) - Wikipedia archive their deletion discussions. So you can always go back and see how the editors collectively make their decisions.
Deletion Discussions search

I've read through some of these discussions when I've been researching why a certain page was deleted. They can be fun!

And who knows - if any of you have the time maybe you can find the deletion articles from 2006.

- Netties Hermit

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Netties Hermit

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the pages for ATS actually show up in that archive. I've just gone through all of April 2006, when it was deleted, and found no discussion reference to it.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Netties Hermit

oops double post

[edit on 8-8-2010 by WolfofWar]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by CHA0S

I put the first two in but the third one was blocked and it would not let me add it. I think I did not quite do it right so perhaps you could just check it?

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:36 PM
Well, it may not be the best way to be notable, but we also had a member, (allegedly) who shot up a bunch of people.

That may make us "notable." Albeit not in the most positive way.

and from Wikipedia itself,

His depression provoked a suicide attempt in May 2004, describing his experience in a post made on the website Above Top Secret:

I had went through a lot of things in my life that had driven me to a darker path than most choose to take. I split the flesh on my wrist with a box opener, painting the floor of my bedroom with blood I shouldn't have spilt. After sitting there for what seemed like hours (which apparently was only minutes), I had the revelation that this was not the path. It was my decision to seek medical treatment, as on the other hand I could have chose to sit there until enough blood drained from my downward lascerations on my wrists to die.

I dont know if that will help us be notable, but I would think it should. And, since it is a "negative" it will make us look less like we are cheerleading for ATS and presenting a balanced view.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by WolfofWar

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen the pages for ATS actually show up in that archive. I've just gone through all of April 2006, when it was deleted, and found no discussion reference to it.

Yes, I had a quick search myself and couldn't find anything. But I guess you would have to know exactly how it was spelt.
Not sure - maybe it just isn't coming up in the search. You waded through the whole of 2006 articles? Wow - I know I don't have the time for that!

Edit: because I didn't read the post properly.

[edit on 9/8/2010 by Netties Hermit]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:09 PM
This is the link for the Scientific American article

I really am not sure that I should add it. Over to others for an opinion.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I see the Wiki article on Jeff Weise has already been updated to point to our page, but no note by who ever did the edit.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Well, Take out and quote the part that is relevant here in the thread. If you dont subscribe you cant read the whole thing.

I would link it even if it is negative. It helps with the objectivity portion of our mission for a Wikipedia page. We are all big boys and girls here, we can stand in the face of critical information. Right?

I think we need to just throw in everything that will help us win the case for notable. No matter how badly it makes us look.

After all, we are conspiracy theorists. We should know by now that ridicule and criticism is what comes along with that.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by ararisq

You are referring to this are you not?

Internet Users Have Been Defamed by the Anti-Defamation League

As I've said before they can point to, albeit not truthfully, that ATS is a hate-group.

Because of the ignorance based hate material that is posted from time to time.

Although, if someone were to point that out, that it attracts dingbats it might work.

Of course, which is dingbat and which is not, is of course up for discussion.

If everyone on this thread wants to push ATS's Wikipedia page you had better consider a few things, before making this more of a nuisance to ATS than to Wikipedia.

1) Does ATS Administration want that page?

2) Will they ask for it to be pulled down themselves?

3) Will it be fair and balanced?

Meaning, you have to point out the positives, and the negatives.

The skeptical with the literal.

The good posters and the bad posters.

The overall meaning behind the website as well as some of our own examples of what we will not accept, ATS Administration, leading the way?

And yes, if we're going to point out Deny Ignorance, we have to point out actual ignorance happening on this very website, not to mention those who have perpetuated hoaxes, deaths of members and the outpouring of sympathy, and even the different newsworthy stories.

In other words this should be something seriously considered.

Fair, balanced, and unbiased.

That is what Wikipedia looks for just as much as ATS looks for.

This can be sold to ATS Administration if people take it seriously.

But then again do not forget this will fuel baordwars that have been going on for a long time with regards to other websites which hate ATS.

And those on tem who have an agenda towards doing what will towards demonizing this website and all of those on it because of their perceptions.

I just edited in the See Also part.

See Also : Conspiracy Theory

Hope that helps.

Never forget the See Also part.

It is important.

Included the ATS Terms and Conditions

ATS Terms and Conditions

[edit on 8-8-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

1) Does ATS Administration want that page?

I think in the past the last time this topic came up in a big way, the site owners were supportive of the idea of an ATS Wikipedia page.

Although, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, it really isnt about whether they want it or not. I dont see why they wouldnt, ATS is a pretty big deal conspiracy wise. It should have a page. But even if they didnt, Wikipedia is not their website. Obviously, that Encyclopedia Dramatica has some pretty unflattering stuff about ATS, regardless whether the ATS guys want it.

Having a page on Wikipedia would allow some balance against sites like that, imho. Sure, not everything there would be flattering to us, but at least it doesnt make a mockery of ATS.

Edit to add,

I think the line about ATS being a top source of breaking news will be problematic. It is unsupported, for one. And it is pretty obviously biased. Only ATS readers consider it a top source of breaking news. Most of the world does not, no matter that we ARE faster than the MSM a lot of the time.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:16 PM
I have posted a page to wikipedia about the channel daryl ankar..

it was not malicious or 'false' . it simply tells his story as he does..

it was removed as an 'obvious hoax'.

I didn't bother challenging it because: a) I'm not that bothered.


b) I had previously made an ammendment to wikipedia's 'world peace' page which had said (paraphrasing) 'world peace is a nice idea but impossible'.
I edited it to read (again, paraphrasing) 'world peace is 100% possible, everyone stops fighting.. that's world peace'.

This was removed within 24 hours.

The actual wording was not as childishly simple as I have posted here..
after that I concluded that it wasn't worth the stress of paying attention to wikipedia as a useful reference of truth.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:40 PM
To me it seems that anything offensive to the general "Westernized" population is either edited or removed. You can talk crap about terrorists and communist but you can't say anything too "cruel" and "biased" about white people. In fact, they make it so that it is biased against one group and for another group.

Remember, Wikipedia is usually monitored and edited by people with agendas. People who wants to change people's views. People with internet access. People in well off countries who have never learned and experienced anything outside of their public education and mass media.

There's a reason why encyclopedias cannot be cited in papers. Encyclopedias are only dependable on simple scientific topics such as "Potatoes."

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:45 PM
when you consider that many words, when searched for in google bring up wikipedia pages as the first hit.. and the ease with which we often form habits..

it makes wikipedia in many senses the informational equivalent of mcdonalds.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:48 PM
ah aha. the realisation..

we need to find truth inside ourselves.
the truth IS Within.

without that ability.. if we push it outside into a computer.. we are going to be pretty messed up.

its that simple.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:56 PM
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.....

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by Mossboss16

Only because you didnt read the whole post, or thread. They started the page after the thread started. The OP even edited that onto the bottom of the OP to help prevent the numerous posts saying "I see a page, ur stoopid."

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:10 PM
I made an addition for Coast To Coast and we had a visit from an admin while I was editing. He made some changes that clashed, but it seems OK now.

Re Scientific American if I can see the bad bit so can anyone else so perhaps best left out?

Edit. I have added the link for Scientific American as well couched in as vague terms as I can. Edit it if you do not approve.

See In The News

[edit on 8/8/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:32 PM
we are all familar with john lear, yes? he's the son of notable figure who created the lear jet. he holds countless flight records. he's famous in ufology. but when someone at ATS attempted to get him an entry on wikipedia, it was removed after ATS members who didn't like john lear's conspiracy theories, submitted objections to his entry in wikipedia. it was summarily removed.

erased. from history.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in