Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Freedom Watch

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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. Apart from the author and David Gerard, the outright 'keeps' are not included, being rants from anons (with sometimes forged signatures). David Gerard conditions his comment on acceptable references — the references do not appear to have sated the critics. What remains is consensus to delete. -Splash 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Freedom Watch

edit

Webpage with Alexa ranking of 862,598. Alexa description: Church of Scientology effort to expose religious intolerance, especially--but not exclusively--that directed against Scientology. The information shows a strong bias and is presented without any source. There is nowhere indicated who is responsible for the site. Site is not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Irmgard 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Speedy No context, exists solely for external link. Could probably be made into a real article but isn't one at present. Dlyons493 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Irmgard's statement is inaccurate. The information on RFW is presented with sources such as court records, police records, etc. Check out their page on Rick Ross. Who is responsible for the site is irrelevant, but if it is a concern: WHOIS reveal who is responsible. Site is a notable critic of the critics of Scientology Note: RFW is more notable than Barbara Schwarz which is also up for deletion and currently looking like a keep. :) signs of Wikipedia's sytemic bias... --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) AI (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
      • I agree with user AI. Wikipedia can't allow rather unsupported articles and sources but the other side not allowing the RFW who backs most of its claims up with official documents as information source or reference! Part of User:VIVALDI ROCKS!'s second edit.
  • Keep, but please include information as to the actual nature of RFW (i.e., a front group founded by Scientology to harass critics.) Sdedeo 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Delete per Modemac below. Sdedeo 18:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok but make sure you attribute any claims. I doubt you have any proof that it was founded "to harass critics." The site itself claims to expose critics, of course the critics do not like this and claim "harassment." --AI 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid I am going to have to vote Delete on this one. Despite AI's claims that he wants "contribution from all POVs and NPOVs" his actual editing shows that he wants it to be his own view and no one else's. Since when was it acceptable Wikipedia practice to revert three times, asking for attribution and then refusing to accept it once you get it, and then placing all the attributed material you don't want under a header stating "Claims by [[USERNAME]]" in the article? If AI is going to defend what he erroneously sees as his article with these unacceptable tactics, then we are better off having no article on this subject -- rather than one claimed by this editor as his private soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is not the solution to a failure to resolve disputes --AI 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • AI, I agree that VfD is not the place to resolve NPOV disputes, but I have looked at your edits, and it is pretty clear that you are behaving very poorly. Antaeus needs to supply sources (online or off) for the various statements in the article that you are trying to delete. But right now, it appears that you (AI) are behaving very disruptively. Sdedeo 03:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources were supplied for all of them except the claim that RFW is a Scientology group -- a source for which was given in this very AfD. After that, AI changed his story; instead of wanting contributions from POVs other than his own to be sourced, he wanted them to not "look like propaganda to me" -- i.e., he does not want all POVs to contribute after all, he only wants information favorable to RFW to go in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole article could be summarized as a notable mention under Scientology versus The Internet. The site does not contain much more than smear bios about Scn critics, and the article is turning into an edit war. Make the whole subject into one paragraph or so, and move it where it fits better. Marbahlarbs 06:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability. Deserves a mention at some scientology article, but not an article for itself. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only noteworthy thing about this Web site is that it is a Scientology propaganda page full of unsubstantiated, undocumented claims designed to smear critics of Scientology in a slanderous and arguably libelous manner. The site is not newsworthy (only mentioned at all in Scientology press releases), and the group has done nothing except harass critics of Scientology. This is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, as it is already amply covered in the Scientology controversy section (under "Dead Agenting"). It is in the same category as an article created by a company trying to advertise their own product: biased, irreversible POV, and nothing more than hot air. --Modemac 12:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Religious Freedom Watch is just one of a long series of bogus groups used as fronts for Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. (Earlier ones included the Scientology Parishioners League and the Foundation for Religious Tolerance.) According to Tory Christman, the now ex-Scientologist who worked with him on a previous front group, Joel Phillips is clueless and is NOT the real person behind RFW; he's just a cutout. RFW deserves at most a few sentences in an article on Scientology dead agent campaigns. This article should go. --Touretzky 14:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The RFW site was created mainly for internal consumption by Scientologists. Its impact on the larger world is nil. A wikipedia entry should not have more substantial content than the subect of its article, which limits the practical size of this entry to to or three lines.

--Vreejack 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Informative website supported by many official references. Who cares who put it up as long as the references can be checked within courts, agencies, Usenet and other archives. Can't see the alleged harassment. Seems critics of Scientology are no saints and they dislike publication about it. SAINT 19:13, 5 September 2005 This is SAINT (talk · contribs)'s only edit.

Signature added manually by --Irmgard 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • ABSOLUTELY KEEP This website contains many official documents, and many of their articles are better documented than most Wikipedia articles. See yourself:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham2.html Not accepting anything provided by Scientologists reminds of how the German Nazis did not accept anything provided by the Jews. What has religion to do with writing on Wikipedia? Apparently, these people who attack Scientology are not as good and innocent as they want to be viewed, and there is no reason why their true characters should be not portrayed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts as information sources Usenet articles that could have been fabricated by anyone. Why not accepting a website that backs most of its claims up with official court and archive records? Note also that the anti-religious extremists never sued the RFW. If it would be true what Dave Touretzky claims, how come he did not sue them? He has money. There are even two attorneys portrayed as anti-religious extremists and the site is all over the Internet. I am sure they would represent their anti-religious extremist collegagues for free, if anyone of them would have a case. The problem is that Dave Touretzky and his friends are an anti-free speech advocates. They remove any critical data about themselves when they can. I had at least five websites with true and supporting information about Dave Touretzky on the Internet. I was informed that he goes after them and threaten to sue the ISP if they don't take the critic down, and the ISP don't want to be involved in legal actions, give in and remove the websites. Fine free world we live in. There is no free speech and that the RFW websites is bullied from Wikipedia is also a sign of no free speech. User Vivaldi rocks!

As with User:SAINT, User:VIVALDI ROCKS! has appeared from out of nowhere to comment on this article, and on two other articles related to Scientology critics that have seen disputes between User:AI and other Wikipedians. See VIVALDI ROCKS! edit history. --Modemac 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm also tempted to invoke Godwin's Law.)[reply]
Godwin's foolish philosophy works to protect Holocaust revisionists and other Nazis who try to keep their work undercover. I say shine a bright light on them and trash this obsolete Godwin's law. It is slightly similar to the "law" about monkeys at typewriters who will eventually write an entire ENCYCLOPEDIA. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who they are, their vote should be welcome unless you have proof they are sock puppets of someone else who has already voted. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And on what basis would you propose that they be welcome to "vote" with their first or their third edit? Their "votes" are pretty much vapor since they cannot show any sign of commitment to Wikipedia or any sign of attained experience in the goals and practices of Wikipedia. Now, if they had any significant point of view to contribute to the conversation, it would certainly be taken into account. However, they don't seem to have much to say besides stuff that isn't relevant and stuff that we seem to have read before... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be said against the links to Judaism, Catholic Church, Christianity, etc. - but on the other hand that's not enough for an encyclopedia entry. BTW it's not necessarily so, that critics of Scientology want to suppress this site by every means - on the contrary. The critical site Operation Clambake (whose author also has a page on religious freedom watch) links to it on its frontpage as an excellent example for the way Scientology communicates.I am personally convinced this site does more harm to Scientology than to anyone else - but that's no reason either to put it into an encyclopedia. Mention in Scientology vs. Intranet, that's ok --Irmgard 21:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RFW is a hate site using the weak US libel laws to smear scientology critics around the world. I am myself a victim of this site, as are several of my friends. Even a "balanced" article about this site would be honoring it. Tilman 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[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/Religious_Freedom_Watch&oldid=1080258993"