User talk:Mojokabobo

The debate you were having on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article discussion page is eerily similar to the ones I've been having on the John F. Kennedy assassination and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories articles discussion pages. Right down to the "It's not going to work, so give up"! It seems very, very odd.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally shocked that he actually said that. What stuns me more is that any mainstream media newspaper says something and it can just be sourced in as reliable fact. That's a major downfall of Wikipedia, though I suppose if I want to play the game I'll have to learn their rules. To just say to me "it's not going to work, so give up", lol, that's ludicrous, and a sign that he could not form a substantive debate with which he could refute me.

I really enjoy editing Wikipedia articles, but some of the more controversial articles seem to have gangs of people who will resort to all kinds of tricks and bullying to slant articles a certain way. And these seem to be long time editors and even administrators. It's really disillusioning.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely in agreement Mojokabobo (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of my all time favorites, from the Ady Gil article. I tried to insert a line that the Japanese whalers intentionally hit the Ady Gil. Actually, it was even milder: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to support their version of events, that they were at rest in the water when the Shonan Maru 2 steered a course towards them." Here is the first line of the referenced news article: "Fresh footage appears to back Sea Shepherd anti-whaling protesters' claims that a Japanese vessel rammed them last week." Now, here is the edit that the experienced editors finally allowed in the article: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision appears to show that the deck crew was resting and not engaged in any anti-whaling actions when the Shōnan Maru 2 approached." Incredible! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is weird, why the hell would they change it to that lol. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, wait, I get it now. You were saying that you won the argument right? I thought that the final edit somehow contradicted the story that the Shōnan Maru 2 crashed into the Ady Gil, by implying that the crew was somehow irresponsible due to them not paying attention and lounging around. I went to the wiki for Ady Gil and read up on it, and realize now that the edit you mention is in support of the Ady Gil crew, as there were allegations that the crew was engaging in throwing lines at the Shōnan Maru 2 to try and disrupt their propellors. Sorry I was confused. Mojokabobo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you notice the little comment I made in the JFK Assassination page? Your suggestion of adding the neutrality disclaimer is an excellent one. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, in the Ady Gil article, they totally changed what the referenced source said. Even my moderated paraphrase wasn't good enough! Thanks for your support on the JFK assassination discussion, but I surrendered in that battle, too. Hopefully the readers will sense that the article is slanted.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh well, the best we can do is just to keep on keeping on ya know! If you have any forums/communities that would support you, perhaps you should also try and get some of them to start hitting up wikipedia to support the infowar, as we very well know, the establishment has plenty of operatives doing just that for them. We need all the people we can out there trying to keep an open mind and promoting free speech, and protecting the alternative views that we well know are under attack!

I think orchestrating responses is a no-no on Wikipedia, but I do get the feeling that there is an organized effort to keep material out of the articles that conflicts with the ditto-head world view, and that the ditto-heads are breaking this rule. All the controversial articles seem to have gangs of ditto-head editors to defend "the establishment", and exclude referenced, relevant material that challenges that point of view. The administrators seem unwilling to stop it, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tends to be biased in favour of official accounts. But there's an important point you forgot to include. The article in question omits the official account conspiracy theory which is, of course, that it was Al-Quaida who did it. The government line is that there was a conspiracy by 19 Arabs and several others who planned and executed the attacks. But even this point, I imagine, would be opposed.--BlueRider12 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)