Wikipedia won't allow creation of a Jordan Maxwell page

reply to post by DJW001


Yup that will do it

reply to post by DJW001


And yet we have:

en.wikipedia.org...

Does anyone have a good summary of Maxwell for this thread (that's what wikipedia is proud of, offering very well done summaries of prominent careers, historical events, institutions, etc)? The stuff I know from watching the almost three-hour interview with him (linked on the second page, 5th post of that "The CODE is all around you" thread) is that he's researched since 1959, has been credited with being the "role model" of the fellow in the Dan Brown books (the code and symbol expert "played" by Tom Hanks - maybe one of the worse casting choices in Hollywood history. Or not.), has ideas of such broad analysis that they became memes quickly and then were used in many films. Things like that. Does anyone know more?

reply to post by DJW001

Hi. You say in your post "If Jordon Maxwell wants to be in wikipedia perhaps he can set a gold-fish swallowing record or something." I don't know if he wants to be in there or not, or even knows of its existence. You'd have to think he's tried to look himself up in there in the past, but who knows? As for who he is and his work, if you have 2 hours and 48 minutes, as I did yesterday, an interview with him is linked on the second page, fifth post, of the CODE thread which has got some notice here yesterday and today. An entertaining thread, actually, a twist a minute type of thread.

I don''t like wikipedia. I get every encounter with the so-called Wikipedia administrators. Beause of so-called helpes the wiki administrators, Wikipedia has turned into an online totalitarian regime, with administrators at the throne. Whether you know it or not, every time you log on to a wiki, there’s always one administrator who has his or her eye on you. It takes just one mistake, one wrong edit, and that administrator will be on your case before you even press the “save changes” button. How do they do this? Administrators use heinous “automatic users” called bots to accomplish the task of stalking down users (although the admins are barely human, they can’t possibly watch over millions of Wikipedia users). These bots are the administrators’ assistants, and thousands of them are crawling all over Wikipedia, and at the slightest bit of a mishap, they’ll leave a horrific message on your talk page and notify all the admins. Then all hell breaks loose.

"Notability" is totally subjective.

If I have heard of Jordan Maxwell, and he's hung out a lot with folks like Alex Jones and David Icke, who are also notable individuals.

I would have to say at least 10-20 million human beings have heard of Jordan Maxwell. If not more.

Obviously his quite notable if we are debating his notability don't you think? (When none of us have ever even met the guy in real life...)

What they probably need is a correctly created article showing criticism along with the good things.

You need a neutral article that shows several sides to the coin, especially since symbolism and conspiracy related topics are "controversial".

I am sure if a well sized piece was created with a few dozen sources linked, Including those who criticize his works, in order to stay neutral and show both sides of the story, that would work.

If they didn't allow something neutral and journalistic like that, then I would start to question their agenda very closely indeed.

I haven't seen what was submitted in the past previously so I cannot say how poorly written it may or may not have been. If it was really poor writing I can totally understand why it's rejected.

But if it's extremely informative and neutral with all sorts of sources it should be totally acceptable.

Wikipedia is suppose to be the biggest encyclopedia ever in history.
It's NOT suppose to limit things and say certain things are not important.

It's up to each of us as individual humans to decide what is important. It's subjective.

No one is the authority on what matters. So you decide for yourself.

reply to post by muzzleflash

The point of the thead was that the page is locked, wikipedia will not allow an article on Jordan Maxwell to be written. You can write any nonsense in the subject box, say "Crackers with peanut butter" and wikipeida will say "No such article exists, would you like to create the article?" or something similar. With Jordan Maxwell, nada, you are not given that option. So nobody has even had a change to create a balanced fairly written multi-sided article on him since apparantly 2006.

When a man is sent to the wastelands of wikipedia, you can't see him from the shore.

reply to post by Aleister


Interesting.

I would like to hear their excuse than.

Also, you gotta admit it does look super fishy.

I know a lot about what Maxwell has discussed, and it hits some deep and important topics.

So "if" there is a conspiracy to cover it up a little, I can understand why.

What is strange is why is it so blatant and obvious? Someone should write them and ask. And then post their reply here so we can dissect their excuses.

reply to post by muzzleflash

That was the point of the thread. I don't know if it's a conspiracy as much as someone apparantly tried to create three stories on him in late 2006, and each of them were "huffed". Then at some point, maybe then, the ability to create a Maxwell page was removed from the website. Maybe five admins who never heard of him decided he wasn't notable, then locked the page, and nobody really ever tried again. I'm not in communication with any admin at wikipedia, so if there is someone reading this who may know how to approach them and put this question to them (maybe in the five years since 2006 the issue has never been brought up again? I dunno.) that would be nice. Thanks for reading and for giving me stars, I can count the stars to get to sleep tonight. I wonder if Jordan Maxwell will hear about this thread, and if you are reading this, why not win a goldfish eating competition (like was posted on this thread earlier) so we can say you did something prominent with your life. Jeez, didn't you do anything?/sarcasm alert.

Watching this at the moment, interesting guy so far...

reply to post by blackrain17


I watched this same 3 hr interview yesterday after being put off for a very long time by Project Camelot naysayers, and I found it very imformative and truthful.

There is a lot of truth in what he says and ive done the research to know he is not lying.
Open your minds and stop letting the negativity of the world influence you from finding truth. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt to take the time to understand other peoples point of view.

We are all here to learn.
The more you learn, the more you can seperate the truth from the lies.

Almost every piece of information we can obtain is mixed with both, which i understand makes it difficult to find truth, but the more open minded and less judgemental you are, the easier it will be to filter.

Peace and love to YOU ALL

reply to post by Aleister


Well, I guess as long as Snooki has a wiki page, all is peachy. That's pretty messed up, I'll say. I'd doubt that he even cares, though. Especially when anyone can edit information on that site..I've heard a couple interviews where he's tired of folks putting up facebook and myspace pages claiming it to be from him, said he's not interested in all that..

reply to post by rstregooski

Snokki seems to be a rat-human hybrid of some sort. As for a Jordan Maxwell page on wikipedia, like all other pages there it is not for him to want or not want. It is a repository of human information. When someone hears about Jordan Maxwell, as I did, and goes to find out more about him, wikipedia is usually the first place I look. And what I found is nada, he's not represented there. Then I find that nobody is even allowed to create a page about him. This made me more interested in who he is, and what data he's put forward. This thread is to point out that there is a major hole in wikipedia's article creation decision structure regarding one individual, Jordan Maxwell, and to see if anyone can solve that and/or if people know of any other case such as this. Then there's Snokki, my bff in an alternate universe.

reply to post by Aleister

Then I find that nobody is even allowed to create a page about him. This made me more interested in who he is, and what data he's put forward. This thread is to point out that there is a major hole in wikipedia's article creation decision structure regarding one individual, Jordan Maxwell, and to see if anyone can solve that and/or if people know of any other case such as this.

References to Snooki in the popular media are so pervasive that it would be inexcusable for Wikipedia not have an entry on, er, her. On the other hand, I have never heard of Jordan Maxwell until this thread. As a conspiracy theorist, being deliberately blocked from Wikipedia should only enhance his reputation, don't you think?

A discussion of the reason for the deletion can be viewed here:
en.wikipedia.org...:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Maxwell
On the pro deletion side you have statements like this:

Delete per original nom. Fails WP:BIO so badly it's almost funny:
Has NOT been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
has ONE published work that can be easily found. Hardly notable, Wikipedia is not a library.
The only possible field that this person could be widely recognized as contributing to is whackaloonery, but even then I find little evidence of that (aside from his personal website, which is worth reading for sheer entertainment value. Maybe move it to BJAODN?)
Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. FAILED.
Under alternative tests, expandability is very low.
I think Guy hit it on the head by calling him a self-professed and self-published "expert". --Shrieking Harpy

On the contra side:

Keep! If you delete this article I will never search info on Wiki again.--c4tr4t User's first and second edit. (noted by JoshuaZ 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Ultimately, it seems that the issue was that the consensus was that Maxwell wrote the initial article himself for self promotion. The revising process seemed to be hampered by sock puppets, which led the editors to throw up their hands and lock the whole thing up. If you feel that you can 1) justify Maxwell's inclusion and 2) write a suitably balanced article which gives proper weight to his detractors, you might be able to convince the editors to allow you to post it in a "locked" version.

Something similar happened to "noted Moon Hoax Theorist and Film-maker" Jarrah White, who threw a Youtube hissy fit when he found out he is not notable enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. (It was pretty funny.)

reply to post by DJW001

It looks like Jordan Maxwell may have gotten caught up in his own self-promotion, or maybe one of his admirers tried a bit too hard to promote him. I'm not going to write up a page, I don't know enough about him, although the sense I've gotten from reading about him these last couple of days is that he is very prominent in his field of, how did the guy put it, whackadoodle research (and more power to all of us whackadoodles). If Maxwell is as influential in Fortean science, conspiracies, UFOlogy and other pro-interesting topics as it seems he is, it's not surprising that the major media has not reported on his work. It's the old Catch-a-22, he either is unimportant or is too important for the msm to pay attention to, and my bet is with the latter.

Try and create a page in Wikia!

did a quick google search and i found that he has a wikipedia article up in the spanish version
es.wikipedia.org...

I used to be extremely active with the whole Wikipedia community in the past. The Spanish version should be deleted as it has zero third party sources.

If you want an article to remain, you need to find non-trivial third party sources discussing the subject. I resigned over the definition of "non-trivial" and "third party" with regards to RPGs, but I am quite familiar with what they require.

I'd recommend possibly using this thread as a staging area to collect non-trivial third party source links for references in the article. Three good ones should cover notability concerns.

reply to post by Aleister

Hi Aleister... I read though this Thread and thought of something that I hope might be a good idea... I made a Thread on it here ---> www.abovetopsecret.com...
*******
Secretpedia - An ATS member created Encyclopedia
*******
The creation of an ATS related Encyclopedia might contribute to the issue in your Thread?

A Flag and Star for bringing up these matters.

*Serafine