Port Arthur (Wikipedia) - Revision history

Ockham: Replacing page with '[blanked]'

2008-10-13T11:58:01Z

Replacing page with '[blanked]'

Ockham at 11:51, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T11:51:57Z

Ockham at 11:49, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T11:49:15Z

Ockham: dates

2008-10-13T11:48:38Z

dates

Ockham: New page: The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been cr...

2008-10-13T11:37:58Z

New page: The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been cr...

New page

The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created before the article, with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 13 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~The '''Port Arthur massacre'''~~ [~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article~~] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_Merkel Robert Merkel], backed up by various people including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tannin Tannin], and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.	+	[blanked]
−
−	~~So why should you care? Assuming that you are not from Australia (and especially not from Tasmania, and especially weren't directly affected by the whole thing), what does it matter to you?~~
−
−	The thing is that even today if you look on Google, the vast majority of web sites disagree with what Wikipedia says, except that today that Wikipedia article is top hit. You can look through the references and it is pretty clear that what Wikipedia is saying, about many important aspects of the case, is complete and utter nonsense. Further, you can see that the majority of contributors to the article on Wikipedia have tried to add in truthful aspects of the case, and have ended up being bullied or even banned for it. On top of that, people who have inserted false information have been invariably rewarded. One of the worst culprits of truth changing in that article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebainer Thebainer], was recently made a Wikipedia arbitrator.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.
+The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_Merkel Robert Merkel], backed up by various people including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tannin Tannin], and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.
 So why should you care? Assuming that you are not from Australia (and especially not from Tasmania, and especially weren't directly affected by the whole thing), what does it matter to you?
-The thing is that even today if you look on Google, the vast majority of web sites disagree with what Wikipedia says, except that today that Wikipedia article is top hit. You can look through the references and it is pretty clear that what Wikipedia is saying, about many important aspects of the case, is complete and utter nonsense. Further, you can see that the majority of contributors to the article on Wikipedia have tried to add in truthful aspects of the case, and have ended up being bullied or even banned for it. On top of that, people who have inserted false information have been invariably rewarded. One of the worst culprits of truth changing in that article, Thebainer, was recently made a Wikipedia arbitrator!
+The thing is that even today if you look on Google, the vast majority of web sites disagree with what Wikipedia says, except that today that Wikipedia article is top hit. You can look through the references and it is pretty clear that what Wikipedia is saying, about many important aspects of the case, is complete and utter nonsense. Further, you can see that the majority of contributors to the article on Wikipedia have tried to add in truthful aspects of the case, and have ended up being bullied or even banned for it. On top of that, people who have inserted false information have been invariably rewarded. One of the worst culprits of truth changing in that article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebainer Thebainer], was recently made a Wikipedia arbitrator.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history REdirected 27 May 2002 article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.
+The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.
 So why should you care? Assuming that you are not from Australia (and especially not from Tasmania, and especially weren't directly affected by the whole thing), what does it matter to you?
 The thing is that even today if you look on Google, the vast majority of web sites disagree with what Wikipedia says, except that today that Wikipedia article is top hit. You can look through the references and it is pretty clear that what Wikipedia is saying, about many important aspects of the case, is complete and utter nonsense. Further, you can see that the majority of contributors to the article on Wikipedia have tried to add in truthful aspects of the case, and have ended up being bullied or even banned for it. On top of that, people who have inserted false information have been invariably rewarded. One of the worst culprits of truth changing in that article, Thebainer, was recently made a Wikipedia arbitrator!

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:48, 13 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created before the article, with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.	+	The '''Port Arthur massacre''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(China) article] on Wikipedia is something of a mystery, with the talk page itself seeming to have been created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200206&action=history before] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&offset=200208&action=history REdirected 27 May 2002 article], with evidence of some censorship. From there, the article has been well and truly controlled by a Wikipedia administrator called Robert Merkel, backed up by various people including Tannin, and finally with the insertion of barely heard of "conspiracy theories" that are not actually the main opponents to the official story, that present only the conclusions not the facts in dispute and simultaneously rubbish them.
		+
		+	So why should you care? Assuming that you are not from Australia (and especially not from Tasmania, and especially weren't directly affected by the whole thing), what does it matter to you?
		+
		+	The thing is that even today if you look on Google, the vast majority of web sites disagree with what Wikipedia says, except that today that Wikipedia article is top hit. You can look through the references and it is pretty clear that what Wikipedia is saying, about many important aspects of the case, is complete and utter nonsense. Further, you can see that the majority of contributors to the article on Wikipedia have tried to add in truthful aspects of the case, and have ended up being bullied or even banned for it. On top of that, people who have inserted false information have been invariably rewarded. One of the worst culprits of truth changing in that article, Thebainer, was recently made a Wikipedia arbitrator!