Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened

What Really Happened

• 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.

• Delete non notable website. conspiracy cruft. Strothra 23:28, 28 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.

• 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)
• Keep, a popular and amusing website.--The Brain 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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??
• 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)
• 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?

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• Keep, Useful news site. Also the article should be rewritten to remove all the POV stuff about anti-semitism.

• Keep, Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias.

KEEP, unless you consdier journalistic integrity to be anti-semitism.

• Keep, Another voice for our freedoms!

• 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.

• 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!

• 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!

• 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.]

• 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!

• Keep A lot of effort spent over 'cruft'. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
• 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.
• Must Keep!!!! this is must have for Wikipedia.
• KEEP!!! what are you thinking, man? This entry's a keeper! Everyone knows What Really Happened! What's wikipedia without it?

• 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.

• Delete per above Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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.

*"Keep" In the interest of free discourse WRH and Wikipedia should peacefully coexist. Its deletion sounds suspiciously like censorship.

• "Keep" You list the Daily Kos, Instapundit, Drudge Report and AmericaBlog. Give me a break. At least it has a better layout than Drudge.

• 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)

keep an informative site that gives a viewpoint from the mainstream media that is not really heard on any other source.

• Delete non notable conspiracy theorism Makgraf 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The references to Jews are too general in nature, think if they were stricken or changed to Zionist it owuld be more accurate.

• 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.

• 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)

• 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.

• Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikepedia entry.

• 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)

• 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.

• 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.

• Keep: WhatReallyHappened.com will continue to be an important source of information, depsite the virulent Website Denial that is rampant on wikipedia.

• 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...

I bet this web site would love a country to be a strict as China. The U.S. Government would love to control their people the way the Chinese Government do... They would love that.. Everything they say is right, what you say is wrong. blah, blah blah... And if you don't agree with us, you're a terrorist...

• 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!

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)~

KEEP! WRH must have a place here if free speech is still existent........

Keep and Clean up--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 - daily), the Editor (Mr. Rivero) has been CONSISTENTLY true to an unwritten editorial ethos of FAIRNESS, EXPOSURE, and EDUCATION. Regardless of who doesn't like it. The site adheres to PRINCIPLE. Consistently. While his usual editorial remarks lend a colourful "introduction" to many link pages, have never seen any postings tainted by unreasoned vitriol, bitterness, blind promotion, etc. I salute this great page and recommend it - especially to those who might not agree with all they find! I cannot imagine any reason why Wiki should delete the reference, short of arbitratry censorship and pressure from powers that may not like the COURAGE to EXPOSE unpretty things.... Rick Bryant, UK

80.0.22.97 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

80.0.22.97 07:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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. 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.

• 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)

• Keep: In dispise of the us of a and it's so called virtues, a fake country which only exists through hollywood.

• 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.