Wikipedia deletion of information on Electric Universe

[vatek1]

I was at Wikipedia to do look for information footnotes and References and this is what I found under James McCanney. I am appalled at his deletion and also read the last few words of the statement. Talk about Censorship of Scientific information...Sheesh!

James McCanney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
15:13, 17 April 2007 Edgar181 (talk | contribs) deleted "James McCanney" ‎ (expired prod; deletion reasoning: Person is only notable for his Electric Universe thingie, which has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept).)

Here is the Background of the Administrator making the above statement!

User:Edgar181


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you would like to leave me a message, please use my talk page.
About me
I am a medicinal chemist with a PhD in organic chemistry. I have worked in both academic and industrial settings doing teaching, basic research and applied research mostly in the area of drug discovery. I try to improve Wikipedia by creating, updating, correcting, organizing, and copyediting articles related to organic chemistry, particularly heterocyclic compounds and natural organic compounds. To get a better idea of my interests, just take a look at some of the articles I have started or this gallery of some of the ~4000 chemical structure images I have uploaded, or see my contributions.

As a Wikipedia administrator, the chores that I routinely assist with include speedy deletions, always beginning with the attack articles, and blocking those who abuse their editing privileges.

With my wife and kids, I live in suburban Pennsylvania.

What credentials does this idiot have in Plasma Physics or Astrophysics?

Nuff said,
Forrest

[vatek1]

Well, Edgar it seems you are not open to critcism! James McCanney Deletion

Edgar,

Since, you are such an authority on the Origin or Nature of the Universe, I believe that you should cite your reasons for deleting James McCanney from Wikipedia. Oh, I forgot your reason was I quote " to delete all references to Electric Universe thingie!" Perhaps, you will like to delete Hannes Alfen, Nobel Prize winner, for stating emphatically that it is an Electrical Universe. Hannes Alfen, also stated that there are Matter and Anti-Matter worlds, just a hypothesis on his part, but still does not fit the current Cosmology Paradigm.

Maybe, you should Delete Anthony Perratt for writing in excess of 100 papers on the X-ray and radio emissions of interconnecting Electrical Plasma in the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies or our Local Cluster of Galaxies or the Southern Cluster of Galaxies. Perhaps, then you could delete Halton Arp, for questioning the incorrect assumption of Redshift being a measure of Distance and/or Velocity in Astronomy. Next, Dr. Paul LaViolette should be deleted because he has an alternative theory on Pulsars.

Oh why not delete Einstein, several parts of his Theory of General Relativity have been questioned as being valid. Even at Einsteins death he questioned the validity of his theories of relativity.

James McCanney has published 6 books all on his own dime. He was published several times in peer-reviewed Journals under the Cornell University letterhead in 1980, and 1981. He has developed a method of Calculating Prime numbers, along with developing new theories in Meteorology influenced by Electrical input from the Sun. His value seems well beyond your scope of objectivity or ability to comprehend his theories.

Most likely since you emphatically dislike my opinions of your Administration of the "electric Universe Thingie!", you will delete this post also. Do your best because I will address this to Wiki as a business, certainly this is not an objective forum for my children or anyone to cite as reference for any credible Science report for HS or College level research!

Regards, M Porch, BSEE

[mharratsc]

We're with you on that, Vatek1... but you'll hurt yourself trying to butt heads with those guys at Wiki. Wiki, a noble idea in its infancy, became a tool of die-hard 'Establishmentarianists' whom have a vested interest in keeping the Fiction that most of our Sciences have become alive and strong.

No logic will win out against them... you'd have to offer them a better salary to get them to whistle a different tune. :\

[davesmith_au]

Any moron can edit Wikipedia, and they'll even make them admins!

Person is only notable for his Electric Universe thingie,

Please note, I am NOT going in to bat for McCanney, he and his peeps can fight their own battles. That said, this just goes to show how little these wonderfully talented and qualified admins look into what they're censoring. James McCanney has NOTHING to do with Electric Universe thingie!

McCanney's "Electric Comet" ideas don't even vaguely resemble those of the EU crowd except the fact they both use the term "electric".

The Gatekeeper should have done his homework, if he's such an academic genius...

Cheers, Dave.

[Phorce]

A number of points.

1. Wikipedia is ... well a wiki. By it's very nature anyone can come along and press the edit button. This means that a wiki does not lend itself to linear "today I think the world should know about this" reasoning. Treating WP like a traditional information source will just lead to a lot of frustration. A wiki is an unusual form of collaborative editing. This is often forgotten if it's even understood by many people.

2. WP only reflects the general knowledge and attitude to that knowledge in the world as it is currently. If that includes prejudice to certain contentious scientific theories then that will be included as well ... if that's by exclusion from articles or reflected in rude comments in page comment sections.

3. Marginalized, unaccepted or struggling theories and organizations will always want to use WP to publicize their theories. In fact this is explicitly discouraged in WP guidelines and there are some mechanisms to stop WP being used to promote personal theories or the aims of political organizations. There are some good reasons for this and I don't think we would even have WP today if those restrictions had not been carefully thought through.

If you think about it WP works incredibly well. I constantly stumble across articles that I would never expect to see on WP and they seem to stay there for years (hint: as soon as you screech "censorship!" it just flags your article or area of study for scrutiny by every scrooge like WP editor - there are a few, but there are plenty of liberal editors out there as well).

Recommendation: Try "editing for the enemy". Edit an article on Big Bang theory or gravity science in cosmology. That can quickly be very revealing and productive rather than staying entrenched in the usual attitudes.

[viscount aero]

Recommendation: Try "editing for the enemy". Edit an article on Big Bang theory or gravity science in cosmology. That can quickly be very revealing and productive rather than staying entrenched in the usual attitudes.

+1 great tactic

Can be very hilarious especially if you edit it tactfully and blend it in to fit within the context/style.

[Phorce]

Here's an essay about the tactic if you're interested.

It is a great way to end an argument in real life, and it can often halt an edit war in an instant. It also can result in you having a greater understanding of the opponent's position, and ideally not viewing them as an "opponent" or even "enemy" any longer, but rather just an individual with different assumptions about a given topic.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." —Aristotle