• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

wiki - dirty tricks

Twister Frost

Well-known member
This is exactly why a person should never pull off of wikipedia and think they are getting 1% of the truth. This is the edits page...over 500 pages of edits; anyone is allowed to add, delete, change, whatever and it must then wait to go through a review of the page "moderators." I realize it is probably the teacher in me, but using wikipedia as a resource falls far from being truthful.

Revision history of Dirty tricksFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaView logs for this page
Jump to: navigation, search
Browse history From year (and earlier): From month (and earlier): all January February March April May June July August September October November December Tag filter: Deleted only For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools: Revision history statistics · Contributors · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
(latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

(cur | prev) 22:24, 15 March 2011 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) m (7,525 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:19, 21 February 2011 98.250.61.235 (talk) (7,527 bytes) (→Watergate-era dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:43, 3 November 2010 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) m (7,457 bytes) (→Watergate-era dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:53, 6 October 2010 70.125.58.153 (talk) (7,411 bytes) (→Non-electoral political dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:39, 2 October 2010 Penbat (talk | contribs) (7,413 bytes) (→Watergate-era dirty tricks: abuse) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:02, 16 September 2010 Jeff G. (talk | contribs) (7,409 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 4jq to last revision by 134.173.88.63 (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:01, 16 September 2010 4jq (talk | contribs) (7,536 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:59, 16 September 2010 4jq (talk | contribs) (7,532 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:22, 1 September 2010 134.173.88.63 (talk) (7,409 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:03, 31 August 2010 173.20.201.24 (talk) (7,409 bytes) (→simply correcting a misspell of political) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:02, 31 August 2010 173.20.201.24 (talk) (7,407 bytes) (→Watergate-era dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:55, 30 August 2010 173.20.201.24 (talk) (7,331 bytes) (→Electoral dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:07, 7 July 2010 Markmark28 (talk | contribs) m (6,963 bytes) (wiki link) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:45, 30 June 2010 Difluoroethene (talk | contribs) (6,959 bytes) (Wikipedia is not censored.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:14, 8 June 2010 Prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu (talk | contribs) (7,029 bytes) (One-sentence expansion of Segretti role) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:49, 28 May 2010 84.74.110.214 (talk) (6,737 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:35, 31 March 2010 173.206.69.228 (talk) (6,739 bytes) (→Watergate era dirty tricks: added some hyphens for good measure) (undo)
(cur | prev) 08:12, 23 March 2010 Woohookitty (talk | contribs) m (6,739 bytes) (WikiCleaner 0.99 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:52, 10 January 2010 68.38.104.95 (talk) (6,717 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:50, 26 December 2009 Huangdi (talk | contribs) m (6,665 bytes) (→Watergate era dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 27 November 2009 Viriditas (talk | contribs) (6,654 bytes) (→Watergate era dirty tricks: Revert 152.3.71.76. CREEP is correct and supported by every source on the subject) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:34, 7 October 2009 Penbat (talk | contribs) (6,652 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:35, 15 August 2009 Griffinofwales (talk | contribs) m (6,620 bytes) (Reverted edits by 75.50.91.181 to last revision by Auntof6 (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:34, 15 August 2009 75.50.91.181 (talk) (6,635 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:53, 30 July 2009 Auntof6 (talk | contribs) (6,620 bytes) (→Electoral dirty tricks: Rem line break from external link (WP check error 80) and/or general cleanup using AWB) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:56, 29 July 2009 Jeff G. (talk | contribs) m (6,621 bytes) (Reverted edits by 76.116.206.68 to last revision by SmackBot (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:53, 29 July 2009 76.116.206.68 (talk) (6,737 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:19, 28 July 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (6,621 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:16, 26 July 2009 Avala (talk | contribs) (6,567 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:28, 12 February 2009 99.226.251.131 (talk) (6,560 bytes) (→Non-electoral political dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:43, 3 January 2009 Lightbot (talk | contribs) (6,732 bytes) (Units/dates/other) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:40, 27 December 2008 99.22.51.141 (talk) (6,736 bytes) (Undid revision 259882772 by 79.65.220.247 (talk) - vandalism) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:15, 24 December 2008 79.65.220.247 (talk) (6,875 bytes) (→Non-electoral political dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:14, 24 December 2008 79.65.220.247 (talk) (6,874 bytes) (→Non-electoral political dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:10, 24 December 2008 79.65.220.247 (talk) (6,702 bytes) (→Watergate era dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:05, 12 December 2008 Sceptre (talk | contribs) (6,563 bytes) (of course, if you differentiate, you get 1/x) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:04, 12 December 2008 Sceptre (talk | contribs) (6,570 bytes) (I don't like "In x, '''y'''" opening sentences (see FAC/Quark)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:23, 23 November 2008 Nova77 (talk | contribs) (6,573 bytes) (Reverted blanking) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:02, 19 November 2008 68.248.153.254 (talk) (1,905 bytes) (→Electoral dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:17, 5 November 2008 88.170.100.179 (talk) (6,573 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:44, 4 November 2008 Bremerenator (talk | contribs) m (6,553 bytes) (Reverted edits by 208.105.227.98 to last version by J.delanoy (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:44, 4 November 2008 208.105.227.98 (talk) (6,614 bytes) (→Electoral dirty tricks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:44, 4 November 2008 J.delanoy (talk | contribs) m (6,553 bytes) (Reverted edits by 208.105.227.98 to last version by Whatavividimagination (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:43, 4 November 2008 208.105.227.98 (talk) (6,628 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:28, 3 November 2008 Whatavividimagination (talk | contribs) (6,553 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:24, 3 November 2008 Whatavividimagination (talk | contribs) (6,471 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal: cleaned up stilted grammar and added counterpoint) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:47, 3 November 2008 Whatavividimagination (talk | contribs) (6,106 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal: incredibly biased claims using "verification" from questionable-at-best sources - kept the biased statements, but qualified their partisan sources) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:34, 28 October 2008 TechnoFaye (talk | contribs) m (6,103 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:53, 7 October 2008 Robofish (talk | contribs) m (6,092 bytes) (→See also: added Damaging quotation) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:19, 21 September 2008 71.110.67.28 (talk) (6,067 bytes) (→Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal: correct Democratic name, not Democrat) (undo)

(latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks"
 

beethoven

Well-known member
wonderful example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. good for you protesting wikipedia. thats an interesting opinion you have.

dirty tricks has a long history. just ask leonardo.

"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. " — Leonardo da Vinci

not to mention galilei, and others of his ilk.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/10/21/don-t-fall-for-their-tricks?blog=192

by the way im reading about cointelpro - and not on wikipedia just for you.
 

Twister Frost

Well-known member
No, beethoven, I do not take issue with the fact that "dirty tricks" exist; I take issue with the fact that the resource is wikipedia. Here's what is posted on the "Edit" tab of your link (at the bottom):

"This page is a member of 4 hidden categories:

Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
Category:All articles with unsourced statementsCategory:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from July 2009
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2008"

The two bolded phrases are for your benefit; unsourced statements mean that it cannot be attributed to any source, meaning as far as using this article as research, it would be unethical. That is what I have an issue with because I believe when a person presents something as fact, there ought to be facts used, not facts sprinkled with innuendo and opinion. "But, to each his own."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But some blindly accept anything sent to them in an E-Mail as the gospel- and since it fits what they want to believe- never look further..... :( And then usually just pass it on ...... :cry: :cry:
 

beethoven

Well-known member
good for you digging up dirt. thank you for finding errors.

you may be at odds with the bold text, but from my point of view that is minor. wiki is not my issue. dirty tricks was the topic.

correct me if im wrong, but none of us here are scholars or scientists.

what we all have in common is this wonderful thing of engagement, and that is the fact that we all seem to enjoy ideas.

fortunately, critics here do not have the Inquisition available, only an internet forum such as this one with which to attack with inquistional passion, if not inquisitional authority.

i'm with the scholars tho, just so you know, those who wish us to look from other perspectives, and do not let us forget the past. and i'm also with the scientists who engage in a similar investigation.

points of agreement are just as important as controversy and debate.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But some blindly accept anything sent to them in a PM as the gospel- and since it fits what they want to believe- never look further..... :( And then usually just pass it on ...... :cry: :cry:

There, I fixed it for you. :D
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But some blindly accept anything sent to them in an E-Mail as the gospel- and since it fits what they want to believe- never look further..... :( And then usually just pass it on ...... :cry: :cry:

You have a pretty good record of doing just that oldtimer, but beingthe hypocrite you are it is easy to see how you would make a post like that.
 
Top