Thread: wikipedia censors all information about new book within 20 hours

The cyber gestapo works fast these days! About 20 hours ago, I created a wikipedia entry for the book which appears in my signature. Not only has that been deleted, but so has research information I added to pages for the Federal Reserve, Skull and Bones, the 93 WTC bombing, and OKC within the past two hours. Pages exist for other 9/11 conspiracy books, like "The New Pearl Harbor", so I must have written something to really piss someone off. Gotta love freedumb of speech!

To clarify, all standard wiki procedures for format, reference citation, etc. were followed, so there is no techical reason the site administrators can cite for this censorship.

what did you write?

PS. You can't use the argument of Freedom of Speech because it's a private domain.

Originally Posted by operator kos

The cyber gestapo works fast these days! About 20 hours ago, I created a wikipedia entry for the book which appears in my signature. Not only has that been deleted, but so has research information I added to pages for the Federal Reserve, Skull and Bones, the 93 WTC bombing, and OKC within the past two hours. Pages exist for other 9/11 conspiracy books, like "The New Pearl Harbor", so I must have written something to really piss someone off. Gotta love freedumb of speech!

To clarify, all standard wiki procedures for format, reference citation, etc. were followed, so there is no techical reason the site administrators can cite for this censorship.

Who are you blaming for this?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Who are you blaming for this?

The site administrators are the ones who removed what I wrote. I'd like to know why.

I'd check your book out, but server admin here blocks dating service sites.

what did you write?

this might help you understand why...
Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a quote from the book.
"[insert experts here], all of whom have questioned the government’s account of 9/11"


one of the rules is no citing publications of interpretations of events. Those experts have questioned the governments account, so they have their own interpretation of actual events.

That'd probably account for it...and I can see the reason why. It keeps the site from getting cluttered by 90000 varying opinion based "facts" from whackjobs with a "CIA chip in their head" and way too much time on their hands.

Originally Posted by TenGig

this might help you understand why...
Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a quote from the book.
"[insert experts here], all of whom have questioned the government’s account of 9/11"


one of the rules is no citing publications of interpretations of events. Those experts have questioned the governments account, so they have their own interpretation of actual events.

Negatory. All sources were cited.

I created a page for a book and also added one paragraph to the entry on Skull and Bones citing clearly documented historical facts about members of their organization.

Originally Posted by Water

I'd check your book out, but server admin here blocks dating service sites.

:jawdrop: :laughing: