List of topic pages banned from Wikipedia?
The closest article for this is fittingly on Wiki mentioning subjects that are forbidden, a List of Wikipedia controversies and well-known woo-woos. Below are links to more ban hammering articles.
Deprecation by ScienceApologist
11a) The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative". Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos". Passed 5-2 at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What would you have to believe or write on your hobby page to not be accepted?
Deprecated features or censorship by Wikipedia
- Wikipedia Under Threat | Rupert Sheldrake
- Wikipedia and the Slant Factor | Atlantis Rising Magazine
- The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia (includes the infamous Wiki editor ScienceApologist user) | HIV/AIDS scepticism
- Banned from Wikipedia ... Almost | The Wikipedian
- Electric Universe Wikipedia ban discussion on the Thunderbolts forum | thunderbolts.info
- Wikipedia’s dark side: Censorship, revenge editing & bribes a significant issue | The Next Web
- Dareland banned from Wikipedia | Blogspot
Oh them! Well known for their woo woos
Wikipedia's pages of content editors following the accepted rules. Fact checkers but their actions perhaps seem rather harsh when you have emotional investment in that topic.
Wikipedia: Mediation Electric Universe Concept
Ian has been part of long-time effort to promote the Electric Universe, which may (kindly) be described as an alternative theory of the cosmos, as physical law.
Not many blog posts or news on prohibited pages because nearly all subjects are allowed? No conspiracy as it is all logical? Sometimes it must get personal or crusades on all fronts.
No Wikipedia Electric Universe (physics) or (concept)
The EU theory is in reality restricted to the Wikipedia public, with no visitor access to that specific information and alternative interpretations. Main reasons Electric Universe (physics) are prohibited because it is a pseudoscience and does not confirm to scientific consensus.
Especially any related sources or links to Thunderbolts.info
No Galileo Galilei Wikipedia page?
One of the arguments against Wiki is that the celebrated farther of modern science, Galileo Galilei, as so referenced and lauded on his Wikipedia page, went totally against the popular scientific consensus of his time.
Galileo has been called the "father of observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", and the "father of science".
Galileo Galilei | Wikipedia
Would a Galileo Galilei Wikipedia page have been discussed then removed by Wiki if itself and its policies had been about at that time?
Mediation of the Electric Universe (concept) | Talk
Ian Tresman's concept of an Electric Universe up for expert debate.
Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11 Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification
Hmmm, as with any disagreement there is more than one point of view here. Ian has been part of long-time effort to promote the Electric Universe, which may (kindly) be described as an alternative theory of the cosmos, as physical law. He has a history of padding the EU article with large numbers of irrelevant citations into the scientific literature.
Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration / Pseudoscience
Statement by ScienceApologist
There is conflict between editors who champion pseudoscience, fringe science, etc. like User:Iantresman and the contributions of editors who are familiar and may be considered "mainstream experts" in the material, like myself. I am a fan of the WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:RS policies/guidelines for determining the tone, tenor, and content of articles.
Knowing, for example, that the vast majority of subject-specific literature ignores much of what Ian Tresman would like to see included on certain articles about mainstream subjects is exactly why I demand exclusion or marginalization (in terms of amount of text) of certain points as per the policies and guidelines described.
Likewise, on the pages that are devoted to these nonmainstream ideas, it is important to verifiably, reliably, and accurately indicate that the subjects are non-mainstream, derided, and ignored. This puts a bee in Ian's bonnet because ideally he would like to see mainstream pages describe more non-mainstream arguments or he would like to see non-mainstream pages free of mainstream criticism.
--ScienceApologist 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Todd is GAY! 😉 Lies! 😉 Go to Mediation
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11 Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification
Firstly, are there any civility concerns, or other policy violations here? Because from what I see the problem is more one of content than of personalities. I read the talk page, and while Zowie once brought up "vandalism", he did so in a polite manner, and seemed to accept that was the wrong word for what was going on (Vandalism would be something like replacing the entire article w "Todd is GAY!" 😉
I admit I have no clue who is right about the facts here, but there are some general rules to go by.... Partisans from both sides should be able to read the article without screaming "Lies!" 😉 ... but my job is not to decide who is right or wrong (which I can't, because it is a technical matter, and everyone seems to be within policy guidelines)... OR you could focus on areas everyone can agree to, like citing sources and letting the experts speak for themselves...
To sum things up, I am pretty impressed with the quality of debate here. I really appreciate the respect you have both shown to each other. You seem to know and care alot about the particulars, and as frustrating as it is, I think the article will be the better for your efforts. Sam Spade 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The forbidden fruit of EU and Plasma Cosmology
The Electric Universe seems to be hitched to Plasma Cosmology, itself a non-standard cosmology theory. If you try to search for Electric Universe theory you will be given the auto suggest search option result of Electric Universe (physics) which redirects to plasma cosmology.
Proponents of Plasma Cosmology have to be careful of what they attempt to add and edit on the site or it and they will be quickly removed and banned. Even having the Physics Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven, and the father of modern plasma instabilities Anthony Peratt as the proponent of PC does not make it Wikipedia Kosher.
The topic of plasma cosmology is controversial on Wikipedia and the its page use to look like this before it was edited to conform to the Wiki rules.
The EU theory is partly based on plasma cosmology, much to the annoyance of some plasma cosmologist, but plasma cosmology is not the Electric Universe, the same as the EU theory is not plasma cosmology.
Is it the mainstream science industry creating censorship of the alternative theories of the EU and PC or is it just Wikipedia following its rules, the same for other topics?
The EU theory page was on Wikipedia before it was removed and banned, there is a copy of the EU theory Wiki page from 2005.
The Wikipedia page Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience has more information about the Electric Universe banning and those editors involved.
EU articles such as Electric Universe proponents' predictions regarding Deep Impact have been removed.
How to get yourself knocked out by the Wikipedia ban hammer
As a lot of Electric Universe theory followers who started to edit pages and create topics on Wikipedia found out, mentioning and external linking to websites or articles that are positive about the EU theory was a very quick and easy way to have all your contributions deleted and then your editing permissions restricted or blocked.
EU theory investigator and EU book author Ian Tresman was one of those who was banned from Wikipedia for a time but Iantresman is now back in the Wiki fold, with editing restrictions.
Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined.
User talk:Iantresman | Wikipedia