How Wikipedia's Archaeoastronomy Article Was Hijacked
Having authored new introductory and history segments early in 2008 for Wikipedia's archaeoastronomy article, I faced off with two academic collaborators in the early spring shortly after they deleted every sentence I had written. Determined to rewrite the article top-to-bottom attempting to restore the Good Article status revoked 6 months earlier on their watch, they soon revealed their agenda to achieve the online encyclopedia's top-drawer designation, Featured Article status. Yet their intolerance for article contributions deviating from their rigid beliefs led to several nasty edit wars, each and every one of which I ultimately lost, being out-numbered 2-to-1 and defiant in the face of their unyielding defense of the indefensible. When I persisted with rational arguments to get a word --- any word --- in edgewise, they locked me out of the article they had come to covet as their own. They appealed for administrative consensus to permanently ban my contributions to their article and achieved this objective on April 27. One sympathetic and newly-minted sysop in particular led the charge. The goal was to affirm archaeology's infallibility to run roughshod over archaeoastronomy is not, can not and shall never be challenged, although respected news media and some within the field acknowledge archaeology as ill-equipped and biased, even blinded by its pervasive institutional dogma (see Part 3. sanctifying archaeology).
I am rebutting with this videos on The Politics of Archaeoastronomy released in May 2008 as both a video podcast on iTunes and among a series of features on YouTube:

Take a look at the locally reconstructed Wikipedia article selections below which include links to the actual archived entries. Note how these two men of science characteristically responded by purging content whenever challenged with the unfamiliar, the uncomfortable and the unorthodox --- essentially any fact unblessed by their peers or superiors. They betrayed an elitism and air of incontrovertibility with statements such as, "...archaeoastronomy is a small and highly specialized field; the number of active investigators is probably around 250 (a ballpark estimate of the number of members of ISAAC, SEAC, and SIAC). It is not surprising that there aren't as many editors on Archaeoastronomy as on the major science articles," and, "When subject experts introduce themselves on their user pages saying how they tackle arguments by winning over their opponents audience, I don't applaud their sagacity. I feel pity that the system they're working in has dragged them down to that level." Their fierceness to silence selective researchers advocating the unconventional is no shock to veteran observers. After all, archaeological peer review is the mechanism of choice reserved for professionals to coldly dismiss, with no acknowledgement whatsoever, any progressive research that may threaten to undermine dogmatic beliefs within which it protectively cloaks itself; the protestations by outsiders be damned!
Part 1. sanitizing history The two academic authors of Wikipedia's archaeoastronomy article insist only the written thoughts of the credentialled matter; linking a science's genesis to a reasonably relevant historical movement is forbidden.
Part 2. muzzling dissent Notable, relevant and reliably-sourced information and authoritative quotes were repeatedly deleted by the two academic authors of Wikipedia's archaeoastronomy article whenever in conflict with their beliefs.
Part 3. sanctifying archaeology A final attempt to offset the authors' belief that archaeology is archaeoastronomy's primary overlord and must suppress "cultural inappropriateness" in Wikipedia's archaeoastronomy article survived 1¾ hours.

how Wikipedia's archaeoastronomy article was hijacked | sanitizing history | muzzling dissent | sanctifying archaeology