Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Freedoms Federation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Freedoms Federation

[edit]

At first glance, it seems like this is a real organization, but on further examination, it is pure vanity/soapbox/original research. Please see talk page for details. The user that created this page (MPLX) also created other extremely questionable pages, including: John Lilburne Research Institute and Province of the Carolanas, and is responsible for inserting original research produced by this "Federation" in several articles, including [1] (see "Influence of John Lilburne" section, which has since been deleted). --JW1805 19:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)
It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of right-wing idiots.
It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.
It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.
Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]


  • Keep unless proven to be a hoax. The article is well-written and rather convincing, and MPLX is one of our most productive users. Or was, anyway, he seems to have left the building in April because of a dispute on another article. Radiant_>|< 20:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by the below, so delete, Radiant_>|< 08:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated on the talk page, it's a vanity article about 4 people. Radiant, yes it's nicely made, the articles are a labor of love, but they are vanity articles and need to be deleted. Tempshill 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user obviously put a lot of time in this article, but let's review the sections:
    • Origin of name - just some history on name. Doesn't prove this is a real or notable organization.
    • Application to offshore broadcasting = "We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't"
"We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" ... this is not a quotation but a made-up smear because the statement is not true.
    • Inspiration for Federation = "We managed to get some material broadcast on shady Mexican radio stations, and other illegal foreign radio"
"We managed to get some material broadcast on shady Mexican radio stations, and other illegal foreign radio" ... this is not a quotation but a smear and untrue. There was no cited "we" and FCC licensed broadcasting stations are hardly illegal or foreign.
    • Guide to activities = "We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'"
"We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'" ... more untrue and phony quotations.
    • Four Freedoms World Service = "We got some more stuff aired on illegal and shortwave radio, and also did some public access videos"
"We printed up a pamplet and created a phony 'Institute'" ... more untrue and phony quotations.
    • StarText Intranet = "We posted some of our stuff on the Internet"

"We posted some of our stuff on the Internet" ... this moron does not seem to know the difference between the various early Intranets and the Internet. The quotation is bogus and the statement is untrue.

    • Second offshore operation = "We talked about buying another boat to use as a radio station, but didn't"
"We talked about buying another boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" ... another bogus quotation and untrue statement.
    • John Lilburne Research Institute = "We made up a phony Instutute dedicated to John Lilburne"
"We made up a phony Instutute dedicated to John Lilburne" ... another bogus quotation and untrue statement.
    • Challenging school textbooks = "We complained to Texas that John Lilburne wasn't in their textbooks"
    • Opposition and eventual demise = "We stopped. Here's what we're doing now."
    • Publications and recordings - A list of self-published material. Note that Province of the Carolanas is a hoax, and was put on Wikipedia.
"Note that Province of the Carolanas is a hoax, and was put on Wikipedia." ... this quotation is bogus, the statement is untrue and the writer seems to have a malicious intent on smearing and destroying.
    • Broadcasts - A list of material broadcast on illegal and/or public access venues.
    • References - A list of some self-published work, general pirate-radio stories, and various newspaper articles (probably mentioning these folks as crackpots, as in Activist disputes Magna Carta's significance).
"(probably mentioning these folks as crackpots ..." ... please note that the writer used the word "probably", meaning that the writer has no knowledge but wants to attack and destroy.
  • I'm sure that they believe that they are (or were) a real organization, but I think there has to be some minimum notability threshold for Wikipedia. Plus, I don't like to see Wikipedia used to disseminate fraudulent information (Province of the Carolanas), which gets repeated all over the internet on the various mirror sites. Anyway, I've written enough about this, so I'll leave it to the vote to decide. --JW1805 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well --JW1805 you really do believe in mass propaganda of the worst sort. Your repeated comments "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to disseminate fraudulent information (Province of the Carolanas)" reveals some sort of malicious intent that you harbor towards this subject in particular. Your quotations are all faked - made up - fraudulent - your comments about the Province of the Carolanas are absurd (since it well documented within the British Museum and UK Board of Trade collections, as well as numerous university libraries.) I would suggest that before jumping up and down again in a rant that you perform a little careful research. Not everything that is to be known is on the Internet! Books still exist and perhaps you should take time in reading a few of them on this subject. Obviously I made the correct decision months ago to abandon my interest in Wikipedia 66.90.217.49 02:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]
Please note, I did not mean to inply that the above summaries were direct quotes. They are just one-sentence summaries of the sections, and I stand by them as accurate. How can you say that "We talked about buying a boat to use as a radio station, but didn't" is untrue, when that is what the article says? --JW1805 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is NOT what the article says. First of all there were TWO ships. The first was to become the home of "Wonderful Radio London International" (WRLI) and a sister station known as "Voice of the Free Gospel" (VFG). The history of that venture is well documented all over the Internet on offshore radio sites and in the book and CD "The Wonderful Radio London Story". The second ship was the vessel claimed to be the MV Sarah by Alan Weiner of "Radio Newyork International" fame. The history of that vessel is also well documented. There was a criminal complaint lodged against Weiner (all of this is well documented on other Internet sites). So your statement is silly. As for this the current cabal who wish to delete, they are very small in number when compared to the Wikipedia registered contributors. but alas they are noisy and determined and have an agenda. That is the reason why I quit. I did check yesterday and found that someone noted my absence but wished that I would put in for admin due to the many contributions that I made on many topics. However, my mind was made up when I ran into cabal who want to remove things that they disagree with. I tried to shut down the Sealand topic because it was silly, but due to a number of noisy supporters it remains alive. Wikipedia I discovered has built into itself some fatal flaws that make its encyclopedia subject to manipulation by a handful of zealots - so I quit. 24.155.161.121 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (former MPLX)[reply]
According to the article (that you wrote) the entity known as the "Four Freedoms Federation" NEVER purchased any ship. So, my statements are correct, you have two sections about talking about buying a ship, but it never actualy happend. Am I misreading the article? --JW1805 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, the big problem with this brigade that wants to delete is that it has its own agenda aside from the article. Your statement is proof of this. Nowhere in the article does it say what you are claiming. In the first instance it refers to WRLI/VFG which was documented by many media sources at the time and it is a part of at least two books which have nothing to do with me! On an Internet web site the name of the ship is mentioned. I left it out of the article because I felt that it was not necessary to explaining what this organization was all about. In the second instance there is a line which says: "However, due to complications involving the actual registration of the ship and the inability of the seller to provide proof of legal ownership, this plan also faltered." That statement does NOT say what you claim that it says. In fact there are other Wikipedia articles relating to other subjects which deal specifically with the subject of this ship. The fact is that this vessel gained worldwide attention because of its strange history which was too complicated to go into in the article under discussion. You picked the instance to fight over and clearly you are not only wrong in your rendition but you are clearly motivated to portray a false reading of the article in an effort to remove it. I have now been accused of creating at least three hoax articles and faking information by a little band of people - while at the same time having been previously praised for having created so many articles and having made contributions to many existing articles and at least on one occasion being informed that I should put my hat in the ring for admin! However, I have already withdrawn active input to Wikipedia due to the kind of nonsense which is presently taking place with the VfD issue over at least 4 articles: this one; John Lilburne Research Institute; Eric Gilder (professor); Province of the Carolanas - which someone concluded was a misspelling of Carolina! So much for the informed deletionist squad since Carolina was created AFTER the Carolana venture involving Sir Robert Heath who worked for the beheaded King Charles I! Obviously there is some question as to whether Sir Robert like Dr. Gilder is also a made up character! Really, this entire charade is pathetic and the only reason that I am taking the time to respond is to at least create some kind of record that the deletionists are a destructive bunch who obviously have decided to shape Wikipedia according to their own beliefs. For proof I could point to a string of really non-noteworthy articles which I attempted to tone down or even remove but could not because a number of people wanted them to stay. I had no agenda other than to contribute information across a broad spectrum of topics which were all related in some way by topic. But the little smear campaign is trying to suggest that either a) they were all a hoax, b) they were unnoteworthy or c) they are about me and therefore vanity (!?!). As shown by the ship examples above, it is obvious that facts will not stand in the way of those who want to delete. 66.90.218.47 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]
Honestly, your arguments make no sense:
  • So you're saying that the "Four Freedoms Federation" DID purchase ships and did use them to broadcast radio? Because that's not what the article says. (Maybe I'm misreading it, it is a bit incoherent).
  • No one is saying that Heath never existed. But "Carolana" is, in fact, an alternate spelling of "Carolina". Please see the actual Heath patent [2]. Both terms are used interchangably. (Incidently, the phrase "Province of the Carolanas" is not found in this document).
  • No one is saying that "Dr. Gilder" doesn't exist. Just that he is an obscure academic, and not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --JW1805 16:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well so much for your (Wile E. Heresiarch) knowledge base! Until I quit Wikipedia I was continually inching up into the ranks of editors who made hundreds of edits in real articles ... not just punctuation or voting entries as many are fond of doing. Yours is another classic example of the VfD brigade who love to smear, destroy and tear down. Enjoy your world for it is not one in which I care to linger. 66.90.217.49 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a vanity article with very little substantial content. --JW1805 16:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Four_Freedoms_Federation&oldid=1137856334"