The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

ah here is the article showing the debate on why john lear should be removed. the overall concensus was he was not notable.

xr.com...

Non-notability. Limited objective evidence of claims. Bregence 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

* Delete. Short of being the son of someone famous and being a complete nut, I don't see anything notable about him. 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. For anyone checking out the sources, please note that the "Project Camelot" reference is not to the Project Camelot, just to a website a couple of people started. Someguy1221 06:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

* This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

* Delete non notable mentalist. Nick mallory 09:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* Delete non-notable. Ciaranc 10:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* Delete Non-notable. --Plumbago 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* Weak keep. The level of crankiness may itself be notable, as with John Cleves Symmes, Jr. or Koresh. He has had media attention, I see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* Weak keep Just enough media attention to qualify. DGG 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
* Delete Non-notable. Indrian 08:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit on 9-8-2010 by undo]

maybe there just doing it for laughs cause they know "ATS:Site" will rage about it?
in other words. pushing your buttons.

reply to post by Ashyr


um, it's 2010.
it's been years now since this happened.
they even claimed john lear's interview in which he discussed notable things he has done, to be copyright infringement.

thelivingmoon.com...

life is interesting, methinks.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


From the John Lear discussion:

Short of being the son of someone famous and being a complete nut, I don't see anything notable about him.


Apparently the guy with the world record for the most clocked flight hours in the world, multiple radio and television appearances, written books, biographies, AND being a notable heir to a notable inventor somehow isn't enough for John Lear to have a wikipedia article. Obviously the bar is really high. Let's see who made it in:

Chelsea Clinton
Apparently being the daughter of someone famous was enough for Ms. Clinton.

Snookie
She's done a lot of notable prestigious work.

Paris Hilton
Another offspring of somebody famous.

Khloe Kardashian
The daughter of the lawyer who at one point briefly worked as a defense lawyer for OJ Simpson. In full disclosure, her brother Rob has been flagged for notability issues... since August 2009.

The best one?

Bo-bama. The first dog of the United States

Bo Obama, the president's pet Portuguese Water Dog has a 1,000+ word article on him. A dog. A dog is more notable then John Lear.

I'm not going to say this is a grand conspiracy to shut up certain sectors of society. "TPTB" are not involved in this, but it's obvious that SOMEBODY on Wikipedia, somebody high in it's editorial chambers, has a severe dislike for these topics, and with a mass of followers, is making sure to get rid of specific elements.

I guarantee you, no matter how absolutely water-tight AWESOME we make this article, it will be removed, because if the esteemed son of a world famous inventor: a man who received umpteen awards, has been on countless television shows, radio shows and movie appearances, who has over a dozen books under his belt -- if that man is less notable by Wikipedia's standards than a orange-spray tanned floozy and a dog, then we have no chance at successfully keeping this article.

reply to post by WolfofWar


thank you for responding. i was worried that since you had put me on your enemy list 3 years ago, that you might also have me on ignore!

and you are right. i kept thinking...no way is this accurate. clearly something's weird somewhere. ashyr may have a point that it may just be someone having a bit of fun at the expense of the nerd rage sure to ensue, but to keep it that way afterall this time? i ain't so sure.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by PuterMan

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

Honestly, I think the couching things in vague terms and trying to portray ATS in the best possible light will be our downfall.

What makes us "notable" to the skeptical world, is for the most part, the negative stuff about us. Unfortunate, but true.

If it were me, I would quote the negative things Scientific American has to say about ATS. It may be our most "notable" source. I dont think you have to worry about SO or anyone banning you for it. If they disapproved I would hope they would just pop in and say so. But we are not going to pass muster on Wikipedia trying to sugar coat the press we have gotten. And, for the most part, our fame is infamy. Lol.

Are any of John's claims verifiable ? Thats the main issue. I cant find any mention of his world records on the Guiness website (though I didnt try that hard I freely admit)

Though personally I would have thought being an author would have been enough to keep him in Wikipedia, though again that said cursory google / amazon search doesnt reveal any books he has written himself.

Hell even ATS kicked him off cos he was too crazy, that should tell you something.

Originally posted by WolfofWar


I guarantee you, no matter how absolutely water-tight AWESOME we make this article, it will be removed, because if the esteemed son of a world famous inventor: a man who received umpteen awards, has been on countless television shows, radio shows and movie appearances, who has over a dozen books under his belt -- if that man is less notable by Wikipedia's standards than a orange-spray tanned floozy and a dog, then we have no chance at successfully keeping this article.

The problem with your argument is that all of the individuals you mention have had a LOT of MSM coverage. Even the dog. We have not. If we dont dig up and insert some reputable sources, we will not keep the page up, AND we will not be justified (by their criteria) for crying foul.

We need to find an put in ANY mention of ATS in the MSM no matter how negative or our page will not stay up. Its unfair that they make their criteria for an alternate information sources inclusion rely on mention by competing information sources. (Even the networks do not mention each other if they can avoid it for the competition reason) but that seems to be what they are doing.

Now, we could try to argue to them that we get little mention in the MSM because we are competition, and argue (if we can support the numbers we claim for hits per day) the fact that we are a competing news source IS what makes us notable, but if we cant, we need to run with whatever press we can dig up.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by maskfan


oh now this is a loaded statement. lol

as skeptic overlord or any of owners/mods will tell you, john was not kicked off, he left.

wikipedia is another site of govt controlled, managed thought about false flag terrorism and israels influence and control of the usa , and the criminal conduct of segments of the american military and political and judicial structures we are cursed with.

any site that dares to breathe a peep about this matter , is treated as an enemy and pushed as much toward oblivion as they can daily manage

and by govt i mean cia mossad and related agencies

ats can be a silly place ,filled with crap [i think this is done on purpose]it can also be one of the few popular sites where such truths see a rare light of day.


and that fills these serial mass murderers from the intel agencies with concern

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by maskfan

 

oh now this is a loaded statement. lol

as skeptic overlord or any of owners/mods will tell you, john was not kicked off, he left.

Alright technically he left, its not quite that straightforward though is it

Whatever either way with Wikipedia its all about referencing reliable external sources. If that gets done then everything should be ok.

Well to let you all know, I've an account with wikipedia. I've just removed all the warning flags from it for the time being.

I've also added to the content section a little

ATS Wikipedia Page

reply to post by maskfan


i don't think it's too hard to believe that the son of the man who made the lear jet actually has flown a few planes but i suppose a case could be made that no way would a guy with that many connections, actually have the opportunity to get awards for flying ...airplanes it just isn't like society to favor the silver spoons amongst us. whoever heard of such a thing.

sarcasm aside, yeah, references for his flying awards are probably only available thru the organizations who presented the awards. that would require a bit more research, and i guess his other material wasn't impressive enough to garner any further attention.

personally, i think it's really quite strange that he's not in there, since i can find almost anything else in there. lol

reply to post by undo


Pretty much every show he has been on, even the ones critical of him (Penn and Teller B.S., for example) acknowledge his awards as fact. I'd imagine that would be one of those things one would look into before airing, especially if you were trying to debunk the person.

reply to post by WolfofWar


here's john listening to the show you referred to


oh not just listening, it's the show you referred to. i think....

[edit on 9-8-2010 by undo]

okay are they trying to insinuate that he's really not the son of the guy who created the lear jet? wow that was a hit piece if i ever saw one.

reply to post by undo


Uh no. They are not. Where did you even get that from that clip?

Not even in the slightest. They are calling him a man with crazy beliefs.

John Lear IS in fact a man of crazy beliefs.

Even with those beliefs, he is an accomplished test pilot who is the only person in the world with flying certificates of all commercial planets and holds 17 records of flight.

ATS is a test of freedom. Do we have it or not? The site still exists so I guess we do. In China they might try to wipe this site out or at least try to shield their people from it as someone there might get a funny idea to put the truth on this site before they were made an unwilling organ donor.

The people decide if they want to support this site or not. If people visit this site and participate then it will become bigger than Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not make OUR decisions. We do.

We demand freedom. So do Freemasons. At least REAL Freemasons. Freedom of speech. Freedom to travel. Freedom of thought. Freedom to choose. Freemasonry thrives in free areas. In areas that were not free, but are starting to become free, Freemason lodges shed the first light. Freemasonry promotes freedom. The Freemason lodge is the one place "where men of differing faiths [and views] can break bread together in a spirit of brotherhood and camaraderie." Basically, this is a quote from Dan Brown in a letter to the Southern Jurisdiction of the American Scottish Rite.

reply to post by WolfofWar


when he first starts talking about john he says,

"whose father created the lear jet. Really."

ya know that sarcastic "and if you believe that you're even dumber than i thought."

i know he's done those things. i know he's a test pilot. that his dad was the lear jet creator. but that's not the tone the data is presented in.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Thats just how Penn Jillette modulates. He wasn't being doubtful, in fact if you watch the whole episode, they go on about Lear about how "even intelligent and prestigious people can be convinced into crazy ideas."

Don't worry, they weren't questioning his credentials, just the content of which he peddles. And they rightly should.

Anyways, about our wiki page. It looks like one editor in particular is having an afront to it's existence. His claims also seem fallacious at best.

# 04:00, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (5,929 bytes) (→External links: Review is already linked above as a reference. No need to link to sub-sections of site. No need to link to owner's site here.) (undo)

# (cur | prev) 03:58, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,190 bytes) (→See also: No need to link these here since they are already linked in the article.) (undo)

# (cur | prev) 03:55, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,230 bytes) (And this is worth noting why?) (undo) # (cur | prev) 03:54, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,505 bytes) (→See also: Not sure how this is relevant.) (undo)

# (cur | prev) 03:52, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,527 bytes) (→In the news: Skimmed through CNN video and didn't see any mention of Above Top Secret.) (undo)

[edit on 8-9-2010 by WolfofWar]