Anthony Peake's Wikipedia Article is to be Deleted.

[LarryG]

Anthony Peake's Wikipedia Article is to be Deleted.

It has come to my attention that the article submitted and listed for Anthony Peake to/in Wikipedia is now in the process of being deleted. I stumbled upon this when researching the "James Randi" topic listed in Tony's forum under the General Topics folder at the bottom of his Board Index.

While reading this "James Randi" topic. I followed a few of its links, then did a little 'surfing' myself. At the Randi forum I followed the Wiki link that "Cuddles" provided for Anthony Peake on Wikipedia, (I'm referring to Cuddles' posting #10 at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=50b0fe6ba74f5361239fe1dad5889e18&t=211732 ) and I noticed that Tony's Wikipedia article is slated for deletion. (That's the first time I've come across a deletion in progress.)

The deletion notice is at the top of the article which can be fund here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Peake

Here's a copy/paste of that notice (without its embedded links):

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

End of edited copy/paste.

For those that are interested, it appears that there is an ongoing discussion of the deletion that you might possibly be part of if you so desire. You can find that discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Peake and here's a copy/paste of its current content (without its embedded links):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peake
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Anthony Peake

Non-notable, could not find any sources that go into details. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Current article would need to be fundamentally re-written to be encyclopedic: it presents fringe views with little reference to the mainstream, contrary to WP:VALID throughout it's short content. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)•Delete The references to Peake are mostly his own web site or third hand mentions of him. They are not coverage from WP:RS and don't prove his WP:N. --Artene50 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —HueSatLum 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This page was last modified on 28 June 2012 at 20:59.
End of edited copy/paste.

[Anthony Peake]

Larry,

Thanks for posting this and bringing it to my attention. I do not know what saddens me more, that the Wiki article upon me is about to be pulled down or the fact that my reputation is being dragged through the mud on the James Randi website by people who have not even done me the honour of actually reading my books. I have always reserved judgement about a writer before actually reading their work first. To me this is only fair. But apparently the folks on the Randi Forum do not do this. They condemn without reading any of the evidence. It says a great deal about their own prejudices and the fact that "fairness" is not in their vocabulary.

It really comes as no surprise that I am now being attacked on wiki as well. I have noticed an ongoing increase in animosity towards me and my writing over the last month or two. It seems that I am annoying everybody. The irony is that the ones that are considered "woo-woos" by the zealots on the Randi site also do not like my writing either. My book on the Out-of-Body experience has been given scathing reviews by both the "Society for Psychical Research" and the "Scientific and Medical Network. These condemn me for being far too " materialistic" in my analysis. Indeed I have been accused of being a dangerous "materialist reductionist" and a proselytiser of "scientism" by some. Amazingly the very groups that the "believers" place me in also think that I am a dangerous "woo-woo" idiot that is peddling unscientific rubbish (as I have already stated, these always consist of people who haven't actually read any of my books). I am now regularly receiving extremely negative (and sometimes personally insulting) emails from those who think that I am attacking their beliefs with regards to the OBE and NDE and others attacking me for presenting arguments for the existence of NDEs and OBEs.

I suspect that what is happening is that suddenly I am being noticed by "interest groups" who really do not like what I am writing about. Indeed for years associates have warned me that there will be a point were I will be attacked from all sides .... Because what I write about is getting dangerously close to things that should not be written about. As such attacks will come from groups that under normal circumstances are at the completely opposite ends of the spectrum, the "Believers" and the "Skeptics". As such attacks on the wiki reference to me is just the start. I am expecting it to get far worse.

All I have tried to do is present information for others to make up their mind and to evaluate the evidence. I make absolutely no claims about my hypothesis and never will. It makes sense to me but I actively seek out the opinions of others. For this I am attacked. What is it that I am doing that upsets people so much? The world is full of rackets, bigots and delusional cult leaders. We have terrorist groups killing people by the score and we have religious fundamentalists preaching hatred. What have I done? Written a handful of books that are making people think ...... And this, it seems, is simply not on.

I am getting very tired of all this. Every year I do my accounts and every year I make a financial loss with regards to this whole exercise. I get vilified and ridiculed by people who have never met me nor have read any of my books .... And now I am receiving personal attacks in my emails.

Is it worth it ..... You bet ..... I am obviously getting too close to something and I have got them worried .... Whoever "they are" ......

And they REALLY are not going like the next book ....

Cheers

Tony

[rafromca]

I have noticed that you are not alone in being attacked from both sides. Deepak Chopra who straddles science and "mind/spirit" is also under attack from two sides. While I have found much of what he says to be fair and balanced, as yourself, the fearful religious and reductionist-materialists attack him constantly. Sheldrake and Radin too have been attacked for scientifically exploring "taboo" interests. It is funny that in a society where we supposedly value freedom of speech, and the scientific method that it is felt necessary to censor what I would consider to be harmless ideas that deserve open-minded and respectful consideration. There is no need for mean-spirited attacks.

[Anthony Peake]

Hi RaFromCa,

I agree with you totally. However what is really concerning me at the moment is that I am also being attacked by groups that I have always considered to be my natural allies such as the Society For Psychical Research and the Scientific & Medical Network. The reviews of my third book (TOBE) in their respective periodicals were unbelievably negative. These were not reasoned analyses of the book but involved personal attacks on my own credibility. I have had some negative reviews in the past and I have had no problem with them. As long as the review focuses in on errors of logic or fact then that is fine. But I felt that TOBE had really hit a raw nerve. Clearly it is absolutely forbidden to write a book that may, just may, present a new model of what is happening during an out-of-body experience that accounts for the facts of the experience. Much better to just re-write a book blindly copying what everybody else has written. Originality is obviously a dirty word. Meanwhile these organisations play straight into the hands of the materialist-reductionists by supporting a world view that is simply not explained by modern, or indeed any, science.

You point about Dean Radin and Deepak Chopra are good ones. But both these guys receive massive support from the organisations above plus the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS). IONS have patently ignored me over the years and continue to do so. They same goes for popular radio programmes like Coast To Coast. I have personally given copies of ITLAD to Rupert Sheldrake and Lynn McTaggart (both of whom seemed very interested in what I had to say when we met). I have heard nothing back from either of them. Similarly a copy of ITLAD was actually requested from me by Danah Zohar. Again, this was followed by total silence.

I know that The International Association of Near-Death Studies (IANDS) will take a similar position to the SMN and the SPR for the same reasons. These are all organisations that I am a member of and ones that I have actively supported in the past ......

This all leads me to one of two possible conclusions; firstly, my books and ideas really are total rubbish and that I am an embarrassment to all concerned or, secondly, my books are a challenge to those who should be my natural supporters and they simply want me to go away.

Neither option fills me with optimism about how things will pan out in the future. I am making enough enemies in the ranks of the fundamental, both religious and materialist-reductionist without my "natural allies" joining in as well .......

Best Wishes

Tony

[jobsaboba]

hi tony...if your pissin em off....keep it up mate..... they are either frightened of it coz they dont understand it .... or they are jealous coz you figured it out before them .....DONT give up

jobs

[CFTraveler]

I tried to go in it to ask someone why exactly they wanted to delete it, but found no way. Maybe I'm just not technically oriented enough, but it didn't seem to be an option available to 'just' anyone.

[Anthony Peake]

Guys,

There is not a great deal we can do about this. If wikipedia do not consider me to be reputable enough so be it.

If anybody knows how to directly contact wikipedia please let me know ...... I have tried to place comments on the required thread and it doesn't seem to work ....

If anybody else knows how to comment on there please do so .... stating that I am not interested in having a reference on there ...... I am confused as to why I am not "notable" as I seem to fulfil the criteria but there you go ..... you can't fight the Archons!

Cheers

Tony

[LarryG]

Guys,

There is not a great deal we can do about this. If wikipedia do not consider me to be reputable enough so be it.

If anybody knows how to directly contact wikipedia please let me know ...... I have tried to place comments on the required thread and it doesn't seem to work ....

If anybody else knows how to comment on there please do so .... stating that I am not interested in having a reference on there ...... I am confused as to why I am not "notable" as I seem to fulfil the criteria but there you go ..... you can't fight the Archons!

Cheers

Tony

Tony,

Wikipedia does not use the words " not...reputable enough" as you have just done. They say that you are "Non-notable". They are saying that you are not a person of note to the "mainstream". In American English, a person who is not reputable implies that you are deceitful, shady and a despicable con-man. And when a person such as yourself is labeled non-notable, it means that they are saying that you are of no value to the mainstream, that you and/or your theories are worthless and unaccepted by the mainstream. In other words, they are saying that you are a relatively unknown author and theorist who does not belong in Wikipedia. Then Wikipedia goes on further to state that they have extended the deletion deadline to give the general public more time to prove that you are instead a person of note who is worth being listed in Wikipedia. Perhaps your British English differs. Here are the quotes once again.

Non-notable, could not find any sources that go into details. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Current article would need to be fundamentally re-written to be encyclopedic: it presents fringe views with little reference to the mainstream, contrary to WP:VALID throughout it's short content....Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

As far as you saying

"If anybody else knows how to comment on there please do so .... stating that I am not interested in having a reference on there ...... "

I suggest that you just edit that page like you yourself edited your own Wikipedia page on 8 April 2009. Then just add your comment on the bottom of the page like they say to do. Or maybe you can directly ask your forum member A Dark Philosopher. He has edited your Wiki page several times over the past years.

[CFTraveler]

Larry, since you seem to know more about this, how can someone like me get on and post? Do I have to have an account with them? I honestly looked around to see what the 'dialogue' is, and saw nothing.

[Anthony Peake]

Hi Larry,

Obviously there is a great deal lost in translation between American English and British English. It is nice to know that I am non-notable and as such have nothing of value to offer the Great American public. Obviously porn stars and tele evangelists do. It is, indeed, a weird world. Suffice to say I have not noticed a huge amount of comments on Wiki in support of my continued inclusion and this speaks volumes to me. I do not think it to be in order for me to involve myself so I guess that If my work is considered to be of no consequence by the guys who run the site who am I to argue. Indeed I am keen to not be cited on there and I am happy for the entry to be deleted. As Groucho Marx once said, I would not wish to be a member of a club that would accept me as a member.

Cheers

Tony.

P.s. I have just agree a deal with my publisher for them to publish my seventh book. I wonder how many "real books"(i.e. Not "Vanity Press" or self-published does one need to be deemed important enough to be on Wiki ... Ten, twenty, a hundred? I guess in my case this is not the issue. I guess I will leave wiki to continue with uncontested entries for David Wilcock, David Icke and a myriad of other writers who clearly have far more credibility than I do .....