Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What Really Happened

I am refactoring this discussion. Established editors and anonymous comments will be split for the sake of clarity for the closing administrator. This is pemitted per the deletion guide, "It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." This does not mean, however, that your comment will go unread. The closing administrator will read every comment before deciding. Please remember to sign your contribution by adding four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please remember also to be civil and not attack any other contributor. Please do not edit anyone's comments other than your own. Thanks Naconkantari 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional Note: If anyone calls another editor or group of editors "terrorists" or anything else inappropriate, they will be blocked from editing for violation of WP:NPA. This is your only warning. Please keep your comments civil at all times. Naconkantari 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, What really happend

Established

• Very Strong Delete non notable website. conspiracy cruft. Strothra 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note about my deletion nom. This was done per WP:NN, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:WEB. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism (a term which I do not agree with myself - look up the definition of Semitic which is quite diff from its popular usage.) or Bush hating or whatnot. I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so. Wikipedia is not a compendium of pop-culture, rather, it is (or at least attempts to be) an encyclopedia of encyclopedic topics and facts with notability that is substantiated through well grounded research. The article was nominated for deletion based on the merits of the article alone without regard to the politics or content of the WRH website. --Strothra 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• It would have been useful for you to note that in the first place. People have put effort into this article, and they deserve more of an explanation for its deletion than just "conspiracy cruft". 210.10.240.16 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad that all of that "effort" doesn't show up in the article. --Strothra 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article is plenty notable in its own context. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is ok. Compare to the poke cruft or star wars cruft. --Striver 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - From Wikipedia:Notability (web), Criteria for web content, do people see this as satisfying the first, second, or third criterion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. nonnotable. cruft. Bwithh 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not pass WP:WEB. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is detrimental to the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. The conspiracy soapbox is way out of proportion to its importance. Weregerbil 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of the website is a bit to mundane to be a good indicative of how popular it is, it gives 4 milion hits, but the creator gets 59 000 hits, more than notable enough, accounting that he is mostly known through his site. --Striver 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Michael Rivero the artist, the movie visual effects creator, the computer book author, ... Those are just from the first five Google result pages. Are these all the same Michael Rivero? Looks like there are a bunch more encyclopedic Michael Riveros out there than the conspiracy blogger. Weregerbil 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)..... Yes it is the same guy as the movie effects creator. Rivero used to work in Hollywood.

for the record: Michael Rivero, the movie visual effects creator, and Michael Rivero, the computer-graphics book author, and Michael Rivero, editor of WRH, and Michael Rivero, repeated guest on Alex Jones radio program, and Michael Rivero, true American patriot advancing democracy via WRH—all of these Michael Riveros are one and the same person. —optikos 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not satisfy any of the criteria for web content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an unfortunately popular website. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracy theory cruft.--MONGO 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep,changed my mind, a popular and amusing website.--The Brain 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hobbeslover | (talk)(contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong unqualified delete with extreme prejudice This flood of users is in itself all the more reason to delete, per Naconkantari. Also, fails WP:WEB per many other users; seems to be a disorganized blog about, well, nothing. Delete delete delete. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable conspiracy theorism Makgraf 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, Wikipedia should list facts, all of them, everything however controversial, however disgusting to the one or the other, read the entry on censorship.--Ratatouille 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, per nom, contra sockpuppet claque. -- Karada 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Egads, people! I could see why this page was up for deletion if it was on the Chinese Wikipedia. I suppose it was only a matter of time. Not that it's a great article, it isn't. But deleting it should be a last resort. R Harris 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User has about 10-15 edits. --Rory096 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, As long as the article can be/stay non-POV, I don't see why it can't be kept. If the mainstream media can have articles describing their operations, why can't WRH? - EmiOfBrie 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If a website has to flood the AFD with visitors to get it kept, then it is not notable. Also, the site has an Alexa rank of over 9,500. Naconkantari 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You treat Alexa rank as though it is a statistically-representative sampling of the population at large, where the % of WRH readers who have Alexa installed is approximately the same as the % of the general population on the WWW who has Alexa installed. Alexa counts page rank only via those people who install the Alexa toolbar. The Alexa toolbar is spyware (as fully described in the terms of use: "COLLECTS AND STORES INFORMATION ABOUT THE WEB PAGES YOU VIEW, THE DATA YOU ENTER IN ONLINE FORMS AND SEARCH FIELDS, AND, WITH VERSIONS 5.0 AND HIGHER, THE PRODUCTS YOU PURCHASE ONLINE WHILE USING THE TOOLBAR SERVICE" [capitalization due to Alexa, not me]). WRH is a website whose primary purpose is to disseminate evidence of how various powerbases are acting in ways that are contrary to the individual liberties that were supposedly protected by the founding fathers via the U.S. Constitution. The typical WRH reader is a person who (I claim) is inclined to entertain the possibility that some government agencies and some corporations are acting badly. Wouldn't such a person be concerned about an Alexa terms-of-use agreement that in plain language announces that the Alexa toolbar collects information about their every activity on the Internet, where a (possibly foreign) government could tap into that collected information? I claim that the typical WRH reader would not install Alexa because the East-German-STASI-like possibility of current or near-future abuse of that collected information by FBI, by NSA, by the military, by foreign governments, and by corporations with which Alexa has contractual relationships far outweighs any perceived benefit of Alexa to the individual. Thus, Michael Rivero considers the Alexa page rankings for WRH to be skewed to under-representing how many hits that WRH has per unit time.[1]. Think about it. If a person were to believe the news-reports published every day on WRH of abuses of power, then wouldn't that person be fearful of abuse of the vast collection of personal information that Alexa harvests to the point that the Alexa toolbar would not be installed on that person's computer at all? Alexa page rank for WRH would be counting only A) those careless regular WRH readers who did not read the Draconian Alexa terms of use and B) those casual interlopers who are not the regular WRH readers and C) those who became regular WRH readers after their first several visits with the Alexa toolbar installed and then decided to de-install Alexa for abuse-of-power concerns. —optikos 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. -- Daniel Davis 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up WRH is an essential resource for a great many people. Its relevance is clearly shown just by the number of people engaging in ad-hominem attacks on its editor, not to mention its huge readership and relevance.flyingCoyote
  • User's first edit in a month, and about 40 before that, nearly all to David Peel. --Rory096 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Does not satisfy any of the categories for Notability re: web content. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh. I knew when I saw all these articles pop up on here that the shite would start to fly... Weak keep - seems notable enough to survive, and if we keep it maybe that ever-growing rancid meat smell will go away. So, is Wikipedia a lefty bunch, or a righty bunch, or what? Someone please make up their mind so I know which political leaning to put in my edits, okay? Tony Fox 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Changed my mind. Merge to the author's article sounds reasonable. Tony Fox 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Clean up User:Twinpinesmall This article is in dire need of constant policing by Wikipedia members, so as to ensure a neutral point of view, and no political leanings. If this article were to be deleted, just because a few immature people cannot stand to see any information on those they disagree with; it would COMPLETELY defeat Wikipedia's entire purpose and raison d'etre. The problem is not this article, but rather the misguided belief many Americans have; that there should be one set of morals, ethics, and laws for people with a "D" after their names, and another for those with an "R". As long as ANY article is unique in its subject, does not make unsubstantiated claims, and is not one-sided, then it must DEFINITELY be kept, as part of the world's one true wealth: knowledge.Pine 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User has a handful of edits over a couple months. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Naconkantari. Note that the Alexa ranking is around 10,000. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. All lies, but notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how it's notable? --Rory096 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you explain exactly how it's "all lies?" Earpol 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep appears notable in the realm of conspiracy theory website (an admittedly small and unstable realm). - CNichols 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this is pop-culture, so is half of Wikipedia. Just because you personally don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for other people. Opposition to the mainstream view is certainly worthy of retention. Octavius 0901, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User only has a handful of edits spanning over two years Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, and appears to satisfy WP:WEB just fine. --Hyperbole 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On what grounds? No one here has cited exactly HOW this article satisfies WP:WEB Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up This site is notable, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. It is popular enough, and has been around since the Clinton administration, when it was created shortly after Vince Foster's death. The fact that its popularity has only increased since the Bush administration makes it a notable website. However, it needs definite clean-up, expansion, citing of sources, and as many viewpoints (pro, con, and inbetween) fairly presented as possible before it will be a decent article. Right now, it is currently a partial mess. --CGally81 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Michael Rivero for now. After doing some in-depth LexisNexis and NewsLibrary.com stuff, I was unable to find a single reliable source which discusses WhatReallyHappened, as you would expect for a blog this popular. However, there is no doubt that Rivero is a notable conspiracy theorist. Information about his blog could be included there. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Michael Rivero for now - per Ashibaka, does not assert its own notability, but Rivero himself manages to eke out a tiny bit of notability for being interviewed by Alex Jones. KWH 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep One of WP:WEB's criteria is awards garnered. Here are the awards that WRH has earned over the years: http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm with links to awarding organizations. Also if WRH is an article that becomes deleted, then perhaps slashdot and truthout and Drudge Report should be deleted as well. Which awards has Slashdot or Truthout or DrudgeReport earned that are more substantial than WRH? (Please do list them below. Nobel? Pulitzer?) As a daily reader of both WRH and DrudgeReport, I find that the view supported by WRH is one of fact-finding by commonfolk American citizens trying to practice democracy the best that they know how, whereas I consider DrudgeReport a propaganda machine that serves well to figure out which emotional froth du jour that we sheeple are to be worked up to. Thus I find it offensive to hear labels of "conspiracy theorist" lobbed against WRH, when what WRH is attempting to do is expose facts and evidence that do not fit with the prevailing conventional wisdom. I hold WRH up (as do the awards) as brave patriotic activist democracy in action by the little guy. I hold up Wikipedia as much the same. Also WRH is congruent to Michael Rivero as much as Drudge Report is congruent to Matt Drudge. Without their mouthpiece blog, Rivero or Drudge is a nobody. The only reason that Alex Jones interviews Michael Rivero is because of the WRH blog. Alex Jones doesn't interview Rivero for Rivero's technical business conducted in Hawaii. Furthermore, Rivero's WRH-centered interviews by Alex Jones syndication itself qualifies as "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content. Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it. I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time. Looks like censorship to me. (me? 2,500+ Wikipedia edits.) —optikos 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh please. The "awards" WRH has won is as non-notable as the site itself. May you please cite these Alex Jones interviews that you refer to? And even on the assumption that this is notable, how is this "multiple non-trivial published works"? Please don't bring other articles into this; we are voting on the merits of THIS article only, unless these other articles are precedent for keep or delete. We are not interested in destroying more content than we are creating as a policy; we are interested in deleting that which doesn't fit into wiki, that is all. "Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it." Why yes, yes we are. This IS an AfD - debating how to destroy it (or not) is the entire purpose of this function Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are 10 11 such interviews published by websites not affiliated with Michael Rivero or with WRH, including video.google.com, podcast.net, PrisonPlanet.tv, AlexAnsary.com, mininova.com, and fourwinds10.com:

Google video about Oklahoma City Federal Building sourced from WRH,

Google video about illegal domestic spying within USA featuring Rivero whose only claim to fame on the topic is solely through WRH,

Google video about evidence of government involvement drug smuggling sourced from WRH,

Pentagon Footage,

What Really Happened? Michael Rivero,

WhatReallyHappened.com Michael Rivero,

podcast #3,

podcast #5,

Richard Stallman and Michael Rivero or perhaps FSF is as un-notable as WRH, and

Israel versus Iran.

2002 transcript of interview with Rivero regarding the WRH phenomenon with introduction of WRH as "one of the most talked about websites to hit the web in a long time"

Note that in each introduction of Michael Rivero in those interviews, he is introduced as editor of WRH as though WRH is more recognizable/notable than Rivero himself.

Here are two articles on NewsMax from 1999 and 2002 that site WRH as a notable source:

Operation Mockingbird

TWA Flight 800

Here is a 1997 NewsMax article that showcases in two paragraphs WRH as a notable/substantial source regarding a Clinton-era scandal:

Starr, Foster, Fiske

Regarding other AfDs of the same ilk, it is obvious to me that there is a campaign afoot to censor on Wikipedia the political movement and nonMSM journalism that WRH & Michael Rivero, Rense.com & Jeff Rense, and PrisonPlant.com & Alex Jones represent. A multiple-AfD campaign of sweeping censorship of an entire political movement and of an entire branch of nonMSM journalism is very much worth exposing and very much is a matter worthy of debate on each of that political movement's AfDs. Re:"Oh please." So where is the list of awards the DrudgeReport has earned that I requested? Any Nobel or Pulitzer or Peabody in Drudge's list? So far WRH has entered numerous awards into this discussion whereas DrudgeReport has a big fat zero awards presented here for comparison. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for the same reasons Optikos states above. While I am not a paragon of Wikipedia content creation by any means, I do contribute when I can, and I choose to voice my opinion here. JubalHarshaw 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry for changing my vote back and forth like this. (rm'd earlier edits to clean up) I have to concede the site is notable, and while this article may be targeted for vandalism and POV-pushing, that is not a reason to delete it, but rather a need for it to be improved. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Ashibaka & KWH --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unfortunately. An Alexa ranking of <10,000 is quite satisfactory. Grandmasterka 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe, but 548 unique google hits isn't. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or merge →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep SDC 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC
• Delete per nom. - Tutmosis 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless we are going to remove all web sites from the Wikipedia. Rivero puts up news items that often scoop the mainstream media by a year. He is an important resource, even if one has to perform some mental filtering. The charges of anti-Semitism are hilarious, but I suppose anything that offends any Jew, true or not, must be anti-Semetic. Sukiari 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just another nn blog. Tychocat 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Just another 'blog that has been on the WWW for over 11 years! as evidenced by this 1997 news article on newsmax.com. (What other 'blog dates back that far?) WRH is the mother of news-headline/article 'blogging outside of MSM (mainstream media). WRH predates the term 'blog. WRH's blog WWWsite predates the DrudgeReport blog WWWsite (ignoring Drudge's early email-distribution-only phase). Indeed, WRH predates Wikipedia as a notable phenomenon in the history of the WWW. WRH defined from scratch the concept of blogging throughout the latter half of the 1990s that became popular this decade. These achievements alone make WRH notable. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - there's something wrong with that newsmax article which claims to be from 1997. Even according to Rivero's site archive [2], whatreallyhappened.com was not formed until early 1999. It previously was his personal site, "Rancho Runamukka", which evolved from prior personal ISP websites. My assumption is that the 1997 newsmax article linked to Rivero's personal site, and then someone edited the newsmax article to replace the dead link with the newer whatreallyhappened.com. KWH 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - You don't have to accept something to realize it deserves a page...it's clearly notable, meets standards for keeping websites...this is kind of silly.--Tothebarricades 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, massive sock flood. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • request for policy quote/ref Please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a "massive sock flood" occurs on an AfD, that article is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated see last sentence of first paragraph -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So, WRH is being implicitly claimed as a vanity article due to the meatpuppets and thus as a matter of official Wikipedia not-to-be-tolerated policy "deserves" automatic decapitation/deletion. Wow! What an excellent tool for censorship of whole articles, especially for topics that are popular with Wikipedia-outsiders! Now all Wikipedians know how best to rig up an automatic deletion outcome for nearly any AfD: just make sure that Wikipedia-outsiders are aware of the AfD of their popular topic so that many defenders with edit-total less than, say, 100 can all be declared meatpuppets that in itself precipitates automatic deletion. Hmmmm, sort of like a hypothetical "justice" system where if too many general citizens show up in the audience of the courtroom, the defendant is automatically guilty of a capital-punishment crime. Welcome to the brave new world! (Perhaps even state-authoritarian Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) himself would not have approved of that level of capricious injustice.) —optikos 15:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WRH has been around for more than a decade, a notable feat in and of itself. It also does a fairly good job of listing its sources, something that even we here at WP sometimes have a problem with. As far as the supposed anti-Israel bias, I notice we have articles on Free Republic, Rense.com, Prisonplanet.com and the Drudge Report, which have been known to engage in a little "Elders of Zion" nonsense themselves from time to time. Hey, we even gave Sollog a page, so... Inky 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Cleanup - Reading the arguments here, it looks like the site does have some notability, if nothing else than for its longivity, but also becuase it's cited elsewhere with a certain amount of regularity. On the other hand, the article as it stands is pretty ugly, and in need of help. But we don't delete articles because they aren't good, we improve them. This one is in need of help, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion. Fieari 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, website promocruft. KleenupKrew 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a bit crazy, but notable none the less. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per Ashibaka. Lachatdelarue 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Zocky | picture popups 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous/New

• Please note that the AfD was listed on the What Really Happened website and as a result has brought many anonymous users to this discussion. The website has engaged in what may be seen as a subtle form of vote stacking from their readers/visitors.--Strothra 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Strothra, you got to be kidding. Ever experienced what happens if anybody dares to submit anything on Wikipedia that is only remotely critical of Israel or Zionism? Within a matter of minutes, the entry is plastered with 'Neutrality disputed' and 'Article is up for deletion', with dozens of oh so neutral 'editors' - I call them censors - attacking the article as anything from 'non-noteworthy' to 'anti-Semitic'. They call WikiPedia 'Ziopedia' for a very good reason!!! -- Andrewwinkler 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very well aware of that. More than you know. That's all I'm saying on that subject. --Strothra 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so."Strothra

Oh, I'm sorry strothra, I must have FORGOT the guardian, telegraph, bbc, cnn, fox and pbs as unverifiable resources, silly me! [/sarcasm]OWNtheNWO 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the article?? The article cites NONE of the sources you mentioned above. Perhaps you should attempt to improve the article by adding citations from those sources. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • request for policy quote/ref Strothra, please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a website announces that its article is AfDed, that the website is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see rules against sockpuppeting in the AfD. Deletion is not a punishment it just looks very bad to admins when this situation occurs. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • See your same comment above. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Does it really matter that they posted a story about this "challenge" of a wiki article written by a WRH reader, not Rivero himself? This challenge on the osama video article re-write is baseless. Look at the articles being used to verify the Osama video piece. 95% of them are BBC Telegraph or Guardian articles. There are two articles from informationclearinghouse, which is nothing more than an RSS feed site anyway. Look through the data in the links given and let it speak for itself. Whoever wrote the original article did a shoddy job to say the least. Mabey on hotly contested issues, that are heavily debated you should allow dueling articles on them and let the readers decide which proves their case better based on the evidence presented? Have headers on "hot issues" that link to the opposing article that way until somthing is laid to rest in the majority of wiki users minds the debate is preserved. I think thats the true beauty you guys have as an online encyclopedia that is open source to the public it could allow an up-to-date preservation of current debates. Do what you know is right in the intrest of free exchange of information.

I would add that hobslover seems to have an alterior motive on WRH as he is the only prominent voice against keeping WRH on wikiOWNtheNWO 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• REMOVE: It is clear that WhatReallyHappened.com doesn't belong on Wikipedia and that its content does conflict with the editorial policy of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to maintain consistency then references to substantial resources presenting alternative *conspiracy* versions of history should be banned. If you keep the article on WhatReallyHappened then you are inviting an edit war as people try to edit out the necessary bias from the official article that equates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is better for all that Wikipedia stand firm on its principles. REMOVE the site!

• Keep The article needs to be improved, but 1) the subject doesn't seem to be any less WP:WEB than The Best Page in the Universe or other similar pages and 2) if WP is whittled to just popular, common subjects, it becomes much less useful. 67.20.67.252 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)proberts

KEEP: While it may not meet the criteria, neither does Drudge Report. My understanding of Wikipedia is as an information source, and the article, while it could be improved, does provide information defining the site.

• Keep To my mind, deleting WRH from WP smacks of censorship. I'm not a newbie to WP or Wikia and I'm worried by the attitude of some of those writing above. WRH is a very popular site among all sorts of people, its shortcomings notwithstanding. Although Rivero has strong opinions, some of which sail close to the wind, he's far from being a nutter and he provides one of the best news digests out there. But that's not really relevant, is it. The site is significant, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.204.146 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see anything about this page that would warrant deletion. I view WRH at least twice I day. Even though I disagree with Rivero's comments on several issues, I still regard it as one of the best ways to find interesting new information on the Web. So I think the article is useful if it helps other people find out about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.229.21 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment We are ZOG in a world that hates ZOG. This man is trying to escape ZOG. He does not show correct "Groupthink". Delete him forever! 24.95.110.80

• Keep!, Who will benefit most from the deletion? I read WRH nearly everyday, it doesn't mean I agree with everything in it, I don't see the any anti-semitism. The word "anti" is being thrown about too much, if you don't suport Bush, you are 'anti American' whatever that means, and critisize Isreali policys and intelligence gathering tactics - you are branded the mis-nomer that is 'anti-semite', looks like censorship to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.102.82 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep If I enter whatreallyhappened in google, I get a return of about 284'000 pages which mostly link to the site. Seems important enough to be listed. Removing information about this site on wiki would seem as censorship or maybe a political decision to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.44.15 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Whenever administrators elect to censor the popular types of expression, it always backfires. It may take a bit of time, but it will happen. Some people just can't take a little constructive criticism, can't they? As usual, it is the 'Traditional Enemy" of truth. Whatreallyhappened.com is a premier blog, and absolutely useful.

• Comment dear administrators and 'wikipedians': somewhere on this wiki it says "[d]isagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures", yet it seems equally important for you to stress above that "the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". thanks for pretending that the opinions of the general public users actually matter.

• All but the last three paragraphs are responsible enough. It is at that point that the article becomes partisan. Just delete those last three. User:Nadienonyma

• Keep Whatreallyhappened.com is the most well known website of its kind. World wide. Just because people think the website is anti-semitic and only contains 'conspiracy stuff', which i think are a false acuisitions, shouldn't be a reason to remove this from an encyclopedia. Q: Is whatreallyhappened.com worth mentioning? A: Yes. Period.

• Keep, This would be an act of censorship to delete this entry. 90% of the articles posted on Whatreallyhappened are mainstream news articles. How can you call that conspiracy theory cruft?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.132.68 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, might not be liked by most of us, but that's not a reason to deny it an article. Definitely notable per popularity, as others have stated. --Ultimus 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep,Truth hurts some people, but we need a lot of truth right now. Our country is in the worst situation of its history on many levels and the mainstream media is gutless and cowering against the real evil-doers. If it wasn't for Michael Rivero's WRH and other unpopular truth-tellers we would be completely in the dark.--Protean7 08:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• This comment was added by User:63.226.197.27.

• Delete, The site does a good job finding articles of interest, but the site is not credible and everything is either a Jewish or American conspiracy. I have no problems with the site, but I dont think its worth recognition of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.204.71 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, This site gives the red coated truth about what is going on in our world. You may not like the truth but facts are facts. I'd like to know who it was that even suggested the removal of What Really Happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.20.95 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, Are you kidding me? There is a difference between Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theory.. do not delete this. Do you fear the truth? Nothing is directed at the Jewish population, it is prone to attack Israel, with good reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.8.197 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, Useful news site. Also the article should be rewritten to remove all the POV stuff about anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.130.231 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.193.3.46 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, unless you consdier journalistic integrity to be anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.183.18 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, Another voice for our freedoms! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.45.235 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, It is not a question of theory or fact. but a question of judgement. WRH does not pick any story just because it goes against the mainstream media. We do have a balanced view of the various opinions. The aim is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.88.249 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, WRH site is where the REAL news is. This is the only website I can rely on for the initial news. Then I go to other websites for further news items. Main Stream Media is the worst place for news. Go there for entertainment only! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, We need to find what is theory and what is fact! Also what is a conspiracy, and what is not. This site will give the answers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, All Rivero does is provide links to credible wire service, magazine, and newspaper articles available elsewhere on web, and he occasionally comments underneath the date given for the article, which is his right under the First Amendment. The charges of anti-semitism are ridiculous. Who is making this charge? Identify yourself. Is this why Rivero's site is up for deletion? I suspect it is. [If you really want to ward off anti-semitism, spend your time making sure the US does not attack Iran and cause WWIII. That will produce anti-semitism at the Joe Six-Pack level the likes of which we will have never seen in this country. Abdicating our judgment, foreign policy, and treasury for the express nationalistic needs of a foreign nation to the detriment of our own is constitutional slaughter, and when that produces the senseless death of American soldiers as a result, as it most assuredly will, American citizens will react in their own interest. You aint seen xenophobia yet. And there is no fundamentalist Christian fantasy that could possibly override it...and while you're at it working to stop WWIII, why dont you ask the US govt to give the $6 BILLION oil reserve for Israel -- $3 BILLION in 2002 prices -- back to the US taxpayers who paid for it. There are common working folk in Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska currently pawning their household goods to pay for gas who need it.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.49.17 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, If the WRH site is deleted, it will certainly give me an idea where Wikipedia is coming from. Wikipedia should not exist, if the WRH page is deleted. WRH is definitely #1 site on the net! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep A lot of effort spent over 'cruft'. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.4.92 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Well, it seems we already have people deleting these comments, as mine was. Don't give into the unscrupulous censors. They are true freedom haters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fozzy1015 (talk • contribs) .

• This user's second edit, both to this page.

• Must Keep!!!! this is must have for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.3.253 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP!!! what are you thinking, man? This entry's a keeper! Everyone knows What Really Happened! What's wikipedia without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.171.157 (talk • contribs) .

• Change To, WhatReallyHappened.com This site has been in existence for a noteworthy length of time. It is controversial, and therefore also notable because of that. Frankly there is no good reason to exclude it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.65.177.185 (talk • contribs) .

• MUST KEEP*** this is a valuable source of information. Whatreallyhappened.com sorts through the disinformation that spills out of Washington DC and around the world and puts real facts instead of propaganda that spews out of the politicians mouths. T.M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.233.20 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep In the interest of free discourse WRH and Wikipedia should peacefully coexist. Its deletion sounds suspiciously like censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stratacat (talk • contribs) .

• User's second edit, both to this page.

• Keep You list the Daily Kos, Instapundit, Drudge Report and AmericaBlog. Give me a break. At least it has a better layout than Drudge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.221.131.245 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep The site certainly qualifies as a news compilation site. Many of the news sources on the site are well established newspapers of record, such as The Guardian. I'll agree that some of the sources have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the site still is noteworthy.Zerotsm 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• User's fifth edit

• Keep an informative site that gives a viewpoint from the mainstream media that is not really heard on any other source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.203 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment The references to Jews are too general in nature, think if they were stricken or changed to Zionist it owuld be more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowenmark (talk • contribs) .

• User's second edit

• Keep I don't understand the problem with WRH. It's a great source for news, especially in this day and age with a monopoly on mainstream media. If it is a supposed anti-semite related problem, I don't see it it all. I clearly see anti-zionist, but that is obviously different from anti-semitism.
  I mean, for real, I live in Brooklyn with a plenty of orthodox Jews, I could line up a thousand of them who are anti-zionist. Does that mean these orthodox Jews are anti-semite? I don't think so. Afterall, these orthodox Jews heed and worship G*d and gain inspiration and insight from the Torah. The Zionist worship a piece of soil, which just so happens to sit in the middle of what a number of religons consider their Holy Land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.149.18 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: Of course, the fact that you're contemplating this act of censorship simply validates Rivero's point: Any questioning of pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian orthodoxy can be safely eliminated by claims of "anti-semitism". Deleting the WRH page would cast suspicion on the rest of Wikipedia's content: What else is being censored by the zionist standard? Andy 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• User's first edit

• Keep: When I first discovered Wikipedia, I realized the discovery of a website that truly empowers an individual's right to freedom of expression as well as an individual's right to freedom of dissent. Wikipedia serves as a reference board, which allows individuals to make up their own mind after rationalizing the opinions/facts others present. By deleting this as well as any other similar article, the utility and power of Wiki is marginalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.13.147 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikepedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.140.4.78 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: WRH is one of the best resources on the web. WRH links to mostly to mainstream news sources. Rivero's comments, sometimes ridiculous, and can be ignored while the links mined for gold. I avoid "conspiracy" sites and would not go near an anti-Semitic one -- WRH is not one of these. Vincent.fx 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• User's second edit

• MUST KEEP: I am a reader of WRH since years. To delete the article about WRH would amount to nothing more than censorship. The article is relevant and objective, except the almost obligatory smear of "anti-semitism" which these days is applied to anybody not willing to accomodate the lies of the wannabe-semites any longer. I propose that the part about Mike being "anti-semitic" be removed in a subsequent edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.161.83 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: This is where I have been getting most of my news from for about 3 years. I have learned of countless other news outlets because of WRH. Delete it if you want but as long as it keeps providing news I will keep reading. Screw if Wikopedia doesn't have it in their database. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.77.139 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: WhatReallyHappened.com will continue to be an important source of information, depsite the virulent Website Denial that is rampant on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.134.11 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: What is this? Communist China? Why are you trying to delete something just because its of a different opinion then the minority? Why not delete Alqaeda. We all know who's relly behind alCIAda.... The good thing about America is that we can say what we want to say right? Say what we believe and be free to express our opinion... Why is this country and a lot of web sites against free speech that doesn't "fit-in" to what the they think is right... No wonder people still think Bush is a good president.. All the post about him that are not good are being deleted...

• Please Keep: These are brilliant excerpts from the mainstream media from all over the world! 70% of all my verifyable informations in the past 5 years come from this site! If you want to avoid censorship, keep it! Only it should show the full Domain-name.com and should be written accordingly. I love Rivero's clever and humorous comments on all his excerpts and links! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.90.147 (talk • contribs) .

• No matter if one agrees or disagrees with the contents present on the site of WhatReallyHappened.com. That is irrelevant in this respect. For Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is tasked with providing any visitor with information regarding any subject. That alone is a sufficient reason for this particular page to remain in existence. 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.238.245.50 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP! WRH must have a place here if free speech is still existent........ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.141.230 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Of-course keep .. The WRH entry is exactly the type of information which should be on Wikipedia .. if someone thinks it is biased or non-neutral point of view, then let them propose an alternative/correction/addendum. Deletion sounds like the USSR removing someone's image from the Kremlin photos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.22.97 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, Improve: As a longtime newsreader with no personal connection to WRH organisation, my view is that WRH is a diverse, eye-opening and sensible link page to ALTERNATIVE NEWS MEDIA OPINIONS that would otherwise not be found. The site is an enormous resourse that I am gratefull for. Over the last 2 YEARS (that I've been reading WRH), the Editor has been true to an unwritten editorial ethos of fairness, exposure and education. The site is obviously and consistently guided by these principles. There is an often colourful "introductory comment" aside many of the link pages. While these comments are often passionate, I while have never seen any tainted by unreasoned vitriol, bitterness, blind promotion, etc. I salute this fine resource and recommend it - especially to those who are only familiar with the standard, sanitized press that so typifies the media. I cannot imagine any reason why Wiki should delete the reference, short of arbitratry censorship or possibly even pressure from quarters that may not like exposure of many unpretty things.... Rick Bryant, UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ol'Rich (talk • contribs) .

• User's first edit

• Keep! If Wikipedia is to remain a community-based service facilitating free speech and avoiding censorship it must keep this site. If you throw out whatreallyhappened you will soon be forced to throw out hundreds of articles on intersting authors and individuals R. Sandman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.48.16.45 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: In dispise of the us of a and it's so called virtues, a fake country which only exists through hollywood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep: Pretty new to Wikipedia, but I would consider donating to you guys if you keep this page. I will sign up. apart from the fact that there is no basis to delete it, the truth as shown by a free press is not "anti-anything" it can not be it's just the news silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep, but vastly Improve: The typical unsubstanciated implications of anti-semitism need to be purged and far greater emphasis placed on the site's primary purpose of challenging "official orthodoxy" as "reported" by a so-called main-stream "press". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.149.44 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep this entry and Improve.; If this entry is deleted, then many readers, like myself, will understand that censorship is driving this. I have no connection to the WRH website. I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and What Really Happened. I believe What Really Happened is an excellent alternative news source and not some "conspiracy theory" site as some obviously non-readers of the site have claimed here. And even if one considers it as a conspiracy-theory site as their reason for removal, then that isn't a good enough excuse. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO BE INFORMATIVE. Entry deletions should not be based on whether an entry is "important," "relevant," or "notable" because those categorizations are subjectively and arbitrarily determined by the person who's searching for information at any given moment. If you're going to have superfluous entries on cartoons, anime and local politicians that I wouldn't necessarily include in ANY wiki, let alone encyclopedia, then there should be no problem with keeping WRH's entry. Nor does the WP:WEB notability does apply, because even USER's PERSONAL INFO are included as Wiki. Nor should Wikipedia acquiesce to those who want to press for censorship of an entry based on reasons of political, religious, or governmental affiliation. If you disagree with info posted on the entry -- isn't that what the edit function for? Those who press for WRH's deletion are doing so based on censorship reasons -- just as what happend with Rachel Corrie's play in New York City. If someone doesn't like WRH, then don't read it - and that goes for the site's entry on Wikipedia too. All voices and sources of news need to be heard and maintained -- not just those "sanctioned" by the elitists. And in addition, WRH's entry does not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, No Original Research or Veribility policies. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)USA 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarah smiling again (talk • contribs) .

• User has four edits, all to this page.

• Keep: Unless you're trying to promote cencsorship. -- Stewabumer

• This comment was added by User:213.42.2.22

• Keep!!:I've been reading WRH for years now, and I've never seen anything else than very good information that you won't find in the mass media, things that need to be known.

Rivero is reliable, has a very good analysis skill and is a threat to the Establishment, the Elite. KEEP IT! User:http://lesnouvellesinternationales.blogspot.com/ 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)barakagaia, reader, May 30th 2006, Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.130.38.52 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP I visit the WRH site twice a day. And Smirking Monkey. A good alternative news source. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanbuskirk (talk • contribs) .

• User's first edit

• Keep WRH is a popular, active, and controversial website. Just by virtue of that, it is worth being included. For all the people that consider the site to be anti-semitic, they should especially want to keep the article, since people who get referred to WRH can look it up on Wikipedia and at least be aware of the allegations and controversy surrounding it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article the way it is - whether or not Rivero is anti-semitic is a matter of opinion, but that the allegations have been made is a matter of fact. It just needs to be clearly stated that they are allegations. With the explosion in alternative news websites, It would seem that it would be important for Wikipedia to have information on them of this nature, so people can at least be aware of what biases the website may have, especially when the sites have a large audience. For instance, I have read WRH occasionally for a while, and I never knew that Rivero was a Republican, or that the site was that old. That said, I don't see the point for a second article about Rivero, since he is only notable for WRH. Senatorpjt 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Well, if you delete it, you may. But I WILL NEVER AGAIN USE YOUR RESOURCE, since I'll consider it heavily biased one. And BTW, WRH will not go away, but you eventually will if you continue to censor ideas or free speach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.4.2 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP If you delete this entry and expand your ABCNNBCBSFOX entries then you will lose a huge audience. There are many people on the net that rely on uncensored news and non-corporate news and by deleting this entry you are only supporting the official propaganda of the state. Good Day Sirs/Ma'ams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.219.170 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP I am astonished WRH is even being considered for deletion. It is very well-known, both to friends and foes alike. Criticise by all means, but to ignore it entirely should be anathema to Wikipedia. I'm an English leftie - not at all anti-semitic or racist - and I have WRH set as my homepage. NB: WRH comment on the likes of David Irving and Ernst Zundel tends to focus on the 'they might be wrong but that's no excuse to jail them'. Quite right too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.177.8 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP It's my major news source on the web. It's updated frequently has interesting links to news articles and some science articles from around the country and even internationally, that I would otherwise not be able to find. The site's interests parallel mine, and I'm grateful for its generosity in taking the time to inform me of news that otherwise is largely ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muisy (talk • contribs) .

• User's first edit

• KEEP Do not remove this entry - though I would condone the removing of claims of anti-semetism. It is not anti-semetic to point out the blindingly OBVIOUS influence jewish lobbyists and jewish owned media has upon the US Government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) .

• User's first edit

• KEEP You also need to add to Lord Northcliffe's bio, his most famous quote, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.16.57 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP The websites owner simply comments on the news stories he links to, so his views are not important. What is important is the news stories that are linked, 90% of the material that is posted on WRH is not available in the mainstream media or easy to find in western countries who's agenda the stories do not support. Considering the lies we get fromt he media, this website is a essential resource for anyone wanting to know the other side of the story. To say this website is a conspiracy theorist website is simply wrong, because many people are still asking questions that the mainstream media refuse to touch or answer we are compelled to find the answers elswhere. And this website does that in abundance. Sam, Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.176.115 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP Out of 51 article links posted today, 29 relate to war and war crimes. Hardly "cruft," unless that's what you call uncomfortable current events, or work for the Pentagon.--204.96.170.186 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Note: this comment deleted in past 24 hours. Thanks, vandals! --204.96.170.186 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

• Comment DEFINITELY KEEP IT! The TRUTH must be spread.

• REMOVE WRH or Michael Rivero have nothing to lose if they are denied a befitting entry on a website where anything contrary to the pseudo patriotic goupthink is considered "conspiracy cruft". RiverSide 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, This is one of the most valuable websites that I know of. Though I think that sometimes Rivero has exaggerated ideas, I feel that I can winnow the articles myself, without the good graces of a self-appointed censor, I've noticed that any article in Wikipedia tending to reflect negatively on Jews or Israel, whether the article is true or false, may be vandalized by cyber hitmen, and this seems to be the case here. Thomas Keyes (no tilde on my keyboard)

• STRONG Keep, While I disagree strongly with a lot of things Rivero has to say, his site is well known and a valuable reference for a lot of people (though I often wish they would cross examine his sources better), and I am adamantly against the current demagogic pogrom of VfDing any article that the fasco-liberal ruling cabal want to suppress. I stand with Voltaire on a strong keep.Citizenposse 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. WRH has been a minor phenomena in the web sphere. A good resource for daily news of the the evil empire's activities. I don't see any bias accept towards logically correct moral positions, hence Israel's inclusion based on their own stated goal of a race-based society and the effects it causes. From a wiki point of view, even if one disagrees with MR's viewpoints (he does not editorialise all that much), WRH has been pivotal in forming one of the sources for anti-war, anti-neo-con movement. A definite keep. djr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.148.102 (talk • contribs)

• Keep, This site exposed "extraordinary rendition" long before the mainstream media even knew it was happening. In fact, WRH is often months ahead of stories which eventually get accepted by the main stream media. Rivero is an intelligent man who does a good job separating wide eyed conspiracy nonsense from legitimate matters of public concern. I do, indeed, have concerns about the stridency of his anti-Israel stance. Rivero states that being against the policies of Isreal is not the same as anti-semitism. I think he is correct about that. However, the site attracts anti-semites and that does indeed bother me. Nonetheless if Wikipedia supports freedom of speech they shouldn't even consider deleting WRH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.0.183 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep, Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever if it deletes articles like this one. If you disagree with Riviero, make your case on the article itself -- don't resort to censorship. It's not like Riviero is making up news out of thin air, he links directly to both mainstream and alternate news sources. If Wikipedia is going to start deleting articles that they don't agree with, like so many books burned by the Nazis, then I hope sites like WRH will continue to reveal the hypocrisy of this supposed source of information. I've never considered an anti-semite, and I don't think anyone who has regularly visited his site would either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.80.113 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep, and change WP:WEB criteria to be more in line with the dictionary definition of notable. WP:WEB criteria make no allowance for popularity, or many other criteria that can make something notable. Under these criteria something could be read and depended on by every person on earth and not be considered noteable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.88.61.66 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Wikipedia editors are really pathetic. Why is anti-semitism or anti-Israelism such a big deal to them? What about anti-Catholicism? How come they don't throw out entries that are anti-Catholic? Why are the Jews so sacrosanct? What makes them more special than everybody else? I read WhatReallyHappened.com every day to get the pure unadulterated no-holds barred no-punches-pulled truth and honest realistic commentary. Now I am a traditional Roman Catholic of the Mel Gibson type, and Mike Rivero being an atheist he is also anti-Catholic. Nevertheless, I would believe Mike Rivero in the area of politics and economics and military etc. (everything except religion) before I would believe in anything John Paul II said or Benedict Ratzinger says or any of the crooked child-molesting cardinals, bishops and priests. And furthermore, the fact is that WhatReallyHappened exists and does not depend on Wikipedia for its existence, so whether or not Wikipedia deletes the entry on WhatReallyHappened is nothing more than pure childishness on the part of Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopeia, it should contain information about everything that exists. I am Catholic and I despise Jews and I am anti-semitic (so there! put that in yer pipe and smoke it!) but I wouldn't think of using that as a justification for calling for the deletion of all Wikipedia entries on the ADL or B'nai B'rith or Kabala or Chabad or Israel et al. In fact, I am anti- a lot of things and pro- a lot of other things as well. None of that though should be used as justification to trample on my right to speak freely, nor on the right of the people to be able to obtain information on those subjects. Wikipedia editors should drop political correctness as a guideline for what is contained in Wikipedia and simply write about what is there from an unslanted unbiased viewpoint. Perhaps the entry on Wikipedia itself should say "Wikipedia is an anti-anti-semitic discriminatory encyclopedia that seeks to further the Jewish and/or pro-Jewish agenda and censor any information which is not flattering to Jews or in keeping with that agenda. You can see that in trying to defend and promote one particular special interest group, you are not only setting yourself against everyone else, but you are doing a diservice to all the people (including Jews) who have a right to information and seek that information in Wikipedia, and finally you are doing a disservice to yourself by besmirching your name with the sins of censorship and bigotry masquerading as justice. TruthPathWalker 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Antranik - Yeravan, Armenia

• Strong Keep The reason this entry is up for deletion is that WRH has dared to feature articles critical of Israel. The reputation of wikipedia is increasingly under threat here.
  While WRH and others are being attacked Islamaphobic hate sites listed on wikipedia get promoted and protected - see the resurrection of the Harry's Place entry to see proof of that. There is blog that routinely demonises Islam and Muslims yet it gets reposted after it was rightly deleted. Why the hypocrisy wikipedia?
  But you know what after reading some of the arrogance frorm your registered users above towards those who come here to support WRH I think I am changing my mind.
  Who cares what wikipedia lists.
  Go ahead allow yourself to become a zionist approved reference site - then watch yourself disappear into irrelevance. best thing for you after reading the contempt many of you have for your readers. 88.101.187.61 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The usual 'non-notability' fig leaf that the bunch of Zionist agents who have infiltrated Wikipedia normally uses to hide their blatant censureship doesn't do the trick here. WhatReallyHappened.com has a Google Page Rank of 7/10 and an Alexa Page Rank of the site is 9504. Its readership goes into the thousands every day. On Google alone, 5110 pages are linking to the site, a search for the string 'whatreallyhappened' returns 307000. Tough luck, guys. -- Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Some have argued that their reason for WRH's deletion is that Wikipedia IS NOT a compendium for pop culture. But, this argument is a flawed one -- especially since there are plenty of pop culture-related references that Wikipedia already includes, and there have been no calls for the removal of these entries. I'll cite several examples. For example, Wikipedia has an entry for Cartoon Network's <aexternal free">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grim_Adventures_of_Billy_and_Mandy">The Grim Adventures of Bill and Mandy</a> and Nickolodeon's <a>Fairly Odd Parents</a>. I'm not against ANY pop culture reference being included in Wikipedia, since it's helpful in finding out more about certain shows I enjoy. My argument is that if you're going to include those seemingly superfluous entries, then I can't really see how you can use that a substantive argument for the deletion of WRH's entry. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The credibility of wikipedia would suffer a lot if a popular site with alternative ideas were deleted for non-notability. Also, attacking israeli leaders or organization based on their supposed misbehavings is quite different from being antisemitic. Boborosso 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep totally agree with the "Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" comment. KEEP. Have had many things deleted. also. perhaps we could start our own online Encyclopedia. in which we would accept pro Zionist veiw points and Con Zionist Veiw points. this Encyclopedia only seems to accept Pro. we should get in touch with Rivero for he will have many more hits than this place in the future if the "interested" "wiki's" continue down this old media backward line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There already exists another wiki site that accepts both pro and con views on the topic of Zionism. Ironically, it's called ZioPedia, the nickname given to Wikipedia for its continued blatant censorship towards views critical of Israel. -- Andrewwinkler 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. "Anti-Anything" is in the eye of the beholder, and should not be the basis of an article deletion. You are free to disagree with a website's editorial policy, but you do not appear to be in the business of policing it.67.78.247.59 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will say this one last time. The article was not nominated for deletion due to anything having to do with the website's policies or views or those of the owners'/editors'/operators'/etc. The website's anti-whatever stance was not taken into consideration when nominating the article for deletion. No one has attempted to "police" another website. --Strothra 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. WRH is where I learned of Abu Ghraib LONG before it hit the mainstream media. A source of the Downing Street Memos LONG before it hit the mainstream media. Yeah, why not delete it? It appears to be the only news source we can actually rely on...and that's not good for the establishment, is it? You can't continue to pull the crap you do if you're being uncovered. Sharpinchi-town 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 'couse Tom Harrison says so! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.53.209.10 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE* I thought this was an encyclopedia? What is WRH doing in an online encyclopedia anyway? WRH is simply a website. It's not a historical event or movement. I go there pretty much daily to skim through the posted articles, but it's nothing extraordinary. WRH in itself is not significant. I don't think Rivero creates content, he simply "mines" it from others. I am somewhat disturbed by the worldwide Jewish conspiracy nonsense. I don't support Israel myself, but some of the postings are not simply anti-Israel they ARE anti-semitic. Also WRH has a strong racist anti-immigrant taint. Some of the stuff is good investigative journalism, however, much of it veers off into loony tunes conspiracy theorist fantasy land. Kind of like Alex Jones - ignorant redneck anti-guvmint, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant crap. Where were all of you WRH fanatics when people like me were protesting against US involvement in Central America in the early 80's? Where were you during the anti-apartheid protests of the mid and late 80's? What were you doing during the protests against the first Gulf War? No wonder you're freaked out! If you were semi-literate and politically conscious you would have read years ago about the shadowy and immoral acts of our government and military. WRH and its adherents seem more interested in foaming at the mouth than engaging in creative positive non-violent change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.205.174 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

..or just delete the twaddle above. 'Unsigned'. The only man worth listening to are those not hiding behind their anonymity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if Wikipedia deletes WRH from its website or not. WRH will still be there for readers to enjoy regardless. In fact, if Wikipedia deletes WRH it is Wikipedia that loses another entry and becomes less complete in it's overall coverage of world events, becoming less and less comprehensive with each deletion it does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.205.192 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. "Criticism of the state of Israel is NOT anti-semitic".-Colin powell Arabs are semites, if I criticise the saudis, will you delete my article too? Zionism is a political ideology, not a race issue.

If a mainly muslim country accuses an american who is a dual citizen and who is a christian, of being a spy, are THEY being racist?

• KEEP Calling WRH anti-semetic makes about as much sense as calling some one who oppose china's occupation of tibet "anti-asian". WRH is very critical of Isreal but not in anyway anti-jewish people. -soulinite

KEEP: Very relevant. Great source of non-main stream media. Anyone using the 'anti-semtic' card on Whatreallyhappened.com is insulting the Jews who really suffered and should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.90.14 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: it will be WIKI that gets ignored, not WRH for 50,000 readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.13.230 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep One of the most credible websites there is. By the way, I notice that all comments endorsing the website - there were plenty of them here last time I looked - have been removed. Who is responsible for this? (All this really proves that the idea of open publishing is a farce.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.60.96 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If wikipedia is going to allow articles on the biased presstitutes of the mainstream media, then WRH is definitely a necessary counterpoint. I will seriously reconsider my use of wikipedia if the WRH entry is deleted. Weigh this decision carefully boys and girls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnemonician (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• KeepWRH uses critical thinking in deciding what materials to put on his website.

Critical thinking - its about freedom, about routing out corruption, about doing what the corporately owned media does not do. WRH is responsible in the way they report things. I can only imagine how corrupt this will make Wikipedia look if they delete WRH because they don't like it or someone has told Wikipedia to censor it. WRH isn't pornography, it is honesty. WRH doesn't foist his opinions, he opens peoples minds. What would Orwell think if he saw that Wikipedia was even considering trying to pretend that WRH does not exist? Shame on you Wikipedia, for even considering such a move. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.181.167 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that in addition to Jeff Rense, Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com, also Dissident Voice has been proposed for deletion at this time. __meco 08:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I have been visiting the site for over a year and its strong criticism of Israel cannot be misconstrued as antisemitism; in fact I consider it foolhardy to do so. WRH is at times unpleasantly rightwing and libertarian but does exhibit quite a bit of stuff which is going wrong in the world. --Dagonweb 15:15, 1 June 2006 (CET)

• Strong Keep As stated many times already, WhatReallyHappened is mainly a news reference site, an encyclopedia itself of VERIFIABLE news stories that, in most cases, you WILL NOT SEE in the mainstream media. Any, and all, claims for deletion of its entry are completely ridiculous, for hundreds of reasons stated above and even more unstated. The only thing its deletion will do is make me SERIOUSLY QUESTION WIKIPEDIA'S CREDIBILITY AND UNBIASED OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING in the future. I'll say it again: how can you delete a website than is composed almost soley of LINKS TO VERIFIABLE NEWS ARTICLES. Give me a break.

Well it seems this has become just another yuppie site. If you dont contribute to the site you dont count. Some people do just use wik to look things up, isnt that the main objective of the site. To GIVE OUT information, NOT hold it in. We already have enough sites that do that. I wonder Who is pushing for this article to be deleted. Calling the policies of Isreal wrong is not anti-semitism. That is tantamount to saying critisising the policies of the CRIPS and BLOODS, is racist towards all blacks. This doesnt not justyify taking it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.119.224 (talk • contribs)

• STRONG KEEP - Clearly notable. Meets and supports all criteria. A mere "conspiracy cruft" reply doesn't hold water for deletion. The site provides valid and verifiable information with unpopular views that some are threatened by. You can argue it's accuracy but hardly justify it's deletion. Robotonic 05:09, 1 June 2006

STRONG KEEP - Rivero has said many times that Zundel, Irving, etc. must be onto something, why else would powerful people be so desperate to silence them? Apparently Rivero is also onto something 66.108.7.46 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WRH is a fantastic resource of LINKS to numerous information sources, international and alternative news organizations. Sure, some may link to or hold views that are cautionary, however, there is no agenda, nor any sort of push of a belief system. WRH is no more slanted than the Drudge Report. I personally have not read any stories in regards to content that would justify removal of WRH from wikipedia. The whole concept of wikipedia is to let EVERYONE have an editorial voice, it is up to the reader to weigh the information, and then make up their own mind regarding it's merit. Please do not allow a handful of editors to make this decision for millions of potential readers. I value wikipedia and WRH equally, and if forced to make a choice between them, would side with WRH, since they DO NOT discriminate thought content. I feel that some wikipedia editors and/or readers should not have deletion powers, but that a warning or recommendation of impartiality may be more appropriate in this case. WRH falls into the same category, and is surfed just as often by myself as the Drudge Report, David Icke, Rense, yahoo, google and MSN news. Sure, I'm a liberal, but I'll learn. Just let me have ALL available information. I'm a grown man, and it would pain me to lose the OPTION of seeing different points of view. Perhaps we should ban the works of Mark Twain, I hear he has a character named N****r Jim. He sounds like someone we should ban from libraries entirely. (insert sarcastic laugh here). Deletion of content is the same as book burning in my opinion.

Per wikipedia's own guidelines: Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I site the following page which lists awards this site has won. http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm This is very cleat cut proof that WRH meets the Website Notability Criteria 24.130.196.236 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Keith Coogan

• • As mentioned before, the deletion is about notability, not censorship. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep: Needless attempts at suppression of WRH and similar articles and links is just plain dead wrong, and would only serve to stoke further criticism of the Wiki. Ombudsman 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep: First of all, I don't know why the article was tagged for deletion. A little idea of why it was tagged would go a lot further than 'quick, act now' sort of stuff. :-) And also, just because I didn't edit the article doesn't mean I should have less of a say, I think. I may, for example, refer to the article and otherwise be interested in it. So that's another point. All of that said, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. The site does exist. There has to be some form of rationale on why this article is tagged to be deleted... it's getting rather silly, I think. Until someone can demonstrate an idea as to why it was initially tagged for deletion, I will retain my stance of strong keep. It does seem a bit strange from the outside looking in. Keep it, and in future give reasons so we can make more informed decisions - please. --TaranRampersad 06:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In reviewing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I do not see a basis for this article to be deleted or even to be tagged for deletion. And I am chilled at the flagrant disregard shown in such tags for deletion. This is larger than just one article, it has come to the attention of the general public. By the present process, it seems that there is no penalty for tagging things for deletion without substantiation, and is in itself questionable. With regard to this page, I retain my opinion of keeping it - in fact, I reinforce it. We don't allow arbitrary people with lit matches into libraries, and I take issue with the equivalent happening with the Wikipedia. Sure, we have stuff that needs to be deleted in the Wikipedia, but the appropriate process was not followed for this and deleting it out of turn demonstrates that the process itself is unimportant. That's my read. Open to intelligent discussion. --TaranRampersad 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please actually read the nomination before discussion why this article was tagged. This article was not tagged to the WP:NOT policies but rather the other policies which are stated in the nomination at the top of this discussion. Thank you. --Strothra 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep And, you should clean up the part about anti-Semitism. Rivero's argument is similar to Neturei Karta. If He's guilty of it, then you should also consider deletion of Neturei Karta. Rivero's site is sourced at every turn. All the articles he posts that are of his opinions are highly referenced by multiple sources.
• Strong Keep and Clean Up The What Really Happened article describes a very well-known website with many hits. If there are problems with the article itself they can be fixed -- and I agree that the article needs some work. However, what exactly will deleting the article from Wikipedia accomplish? Just because some people don't like WRH for one reason or another -- whatever the reason -- does not justify VfD's. Although WRH has some original work, it mostly contains citations and links to topics in the mainstream and alternative media that are of interest to a great many people. There are 1000s and 1000s of worse-written articles in Wikipedia, which raises the question, "Why this particular VfD at this time?" Earpol 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is a notable website with a large readership, and has been around talking about the clinton scandals long before any of this Bush stuff. ---Archeus 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.