We must not stifle any that would have the courage to come forward and speak the truth. It is the truth that we can understand. It is Truththat enlightens the mind. When one does a search online and it brings them to Wickipedia, are we to understand that the information contained within this website is yet another source to create and spin their deceit? Are we to logically conclude, Wickipedia is yet another tool, to silence the opponets that would dare to shed light upon those that intend to deceive rather than be honest, teardown instead of build upon? What is the purpose for establishing this website? I understood it to be comparable to an encyclopedia that provides true data and facts on a thing. Honest, true accounts of anything, is what everyone should receive, when they go about to establish a deeper understanding of any given area of interest.

Most Americans, are not ignorant. Whether, one is recognized as notable or not, is irrelevant to the documenting of truth, which becomes history.

Do I understand you to claim that a search on Google brings up nothing? This very moment, a search on CAFR1, will bring you 34,400 hits in 0.38 seconds. A search on Walter Burien will bring you 492,000 in 0.40 seconds. To add further to that, as far as being notable, I think the stats speaks for themselves. If the individual held a political office, then he would be non notable. The information he brings to the table would qualilfy him more to be a hero. A Paul Revere of this century. Much more interesting, and eductional than what a politician represents in this century. The substance of the product his work produces is absolutely essential, to understand the financial operations and the true account of a public fund. Anything less, is sure to be a source of anguish in the future for all concerned. Transparency speaks volumes, as does censorship. He imparts amazing insight into the true accounting of the publically funded accounts our local, state and federal governments are in charge of. In the way I learned to use my mind, this seems the most viable and logical for all concerned. A clear plan that both sides understand and can agree upon. The more responsible and upstanding way to hold a public funded account, keeping the holder honest and law abiding, which in turn brings understanding and peace within the provider of the funds.

The criteria you use to determine whether one is notable, is defunct and lacking in the ability to come to a true account of a thing. What people want when they come to this site, is exactly what one expects to find in an encyclopedia. Facts, not opinions. Truth, not lies. The liberty to seek out information that has not been censored. The right to see and know the truth. Anything less is repugnant to Americans or America, and should be immediately removed as a valid source of information. Debrabryant (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Debra Bryant[reply]

A few Wikipedia reps wish to delete Walter Burien's bio with them noting "never a politician" and that is 100% true and bite your tongue if you said otherwise.

They have also said "no notable accomplishments", "no presence from the syndicated news media on a Google News Search" (Black-out continues there for stated and verifiable reasons)

These Wikipedia reps will delete the BIO of Walter Burien unless stopped by public demand; comment; and affirmative action.

I definitely disagree with the removal of the BIO from Wikipedia. What is the source of the complaint against Walter Burien, as his work is impeccably documented with indisputable references that implicate all levels of government from local to federal in pervasive patterns/practice of secreting and/or misappropriating funds. Is Wikipedia seeking to be an open source of verifiable information, or merely a government censored substitute? Sounds like someoneis 'running scared'! The close to half million hits on this BIO would indicate a strong interest in the subject and Mr. Burien. Here is some information that you may have overlooked.

"No hits of relevance from reputable News Services" (media black-out continues with noted and verifiable reasons); only one article found published in Africa" (outright lie in omission - thousands of articles worldwide); no references (again outright lie with references noted throughout the BIO); "No real presence on a Google search" (outright lie again with it noted in the BIO of specific results on Google hits.) WHY isn't the discussed BIO here, available for the discussion? Well, it should be available, if 'fairness' is part of your goal. Source: http://cafr1.com/BIO.html

(Biography redacted) --Nuujinn (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS POSTED, The American people must know what is going on... It time for the American people to take back their country before greedy people in government robs all. this information has value.. The Public Servants are just that Public Servants and when is a servant greater then his Master? and that is the way I see it. Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.224.254 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New here. Burien should not be deleted. I'm not sure I agree, but he is saying things that need to be aired, I think. ChuckHistory (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is strongly suggested that Walter Burien not be deleted. His information is informative and exposes the government rip-off of the American people. Walter Burien is essentially a Whistleblower and a patriot. Because some government types don't like his uncovering the great American financial scam, they want him off the internet. This is a violation of Burien's, and everyone else's, First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Protest.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director DADS--Dads Against Discrimination Fathers' Rights Consultant b_eden@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.31.116 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add my recommendation for continued INCLUSION of Walter Burien's bio on Wikipedia. I have followed his writings for some time and believe his information is VALID and ACCURATE. Having both worked at both State (Florida) and Local (Hillsborough County) I can attest that the CAFR is a valid measure of financial activity of these entities. It is time that the truth of the CAFR be disseminated.

Ted Bahn Pensacola FL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.0.88 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having researched much of the opposition (to the US government) internet for fictional books I've been writing, I came across Walter quite by accident. Having some accounting and finance background, I also checked his assertions and found them to be accurate. That these claims are not exactly endearing him to (US) government officials at almost every level is very understanding. What I find amazing is the veritable dearth of public support for his work. But having done some research over the years and employed a few strains of thought, if you will, I can also understand and will never underestimate the lengths to which government agencies might go to remove any trace of Walter and his work.

Much of this and the potential deletion of Walter from your pages is directly affronting the First Amendment, as denying Walter's place is tantamount to declaring that his work is without merit. I would challenge anyone involved with this organisation to factually dispute his findings. I understand the strength of the forces arrayed against Walter and his "cause" if you will, but I also more appreciate the right and duty of every US citizen to ensure that the government that was supposed to be "of the people" continues in that vein. Admittedly, in these days, there is little to demonstrably support that assertion with the rampant corporatism at the Federal, State, and Local levels where even Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay for its own stores any longer - we citizens do so out of the goodness of our local government's tax coffers.

However, whether you agree with Walter's "cause" or not, his research and attempt to hold government to the standards we would/should expect is a proper expression of his right to publicise the information discovered on our errant public officials who do not acknowledge the actual state of their finances - only the parts they want you to see.

Let's get real, you probably give more space to Madoff, the convicted Ponzi artist than you do to Walter - and Walter is trying to do the right thing. There needs to be some sense of proportion, here and the US is chocker-block with people whose hare-brained schemes to insult our intelligence (as in shooting reflective globules into the ionosphere to reflect sunlight) probably accrue more server space than Walter's bio.

If, on the other hand, you desire to take down Walter's bio because of pressure from organisations or individuals who have an active interest in quieting Walter, or are influenced by people in that position, you need to take a look at his work. For example, Walter could give you the link to look at some of California's pension system investments. There are a few eye-opening pages. Were the funds invested by the Federal government, State, County, and Local governments across the USA ever used or managed in concert, you would then better understand the cries of "economic hegemony" that have been levelled at the US for decades. I must admit I didn't quite understand those accusations until I grasped what Walter has found - a series of "discoveries" that makes common sense, if you think about it. It took sophisticated computer networks to bring the economic forces of all the respective government agencies to bear.

Think about the content and what it means. If you are still under such pressure to delete Walter, then I presume it is an action forced by survival questions. If your sense of civic stewardship is stronger, then perhaps it is not so appropriate. What you should remember is that in many ways, Walter is fighting the Establishment. And the Establishment is your friend only if you are working for them and their interests - Walter isn't. I prefer to think he is on the side of the people. Edit: added by Duncan Druhl, druhl@druhl.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.250.220 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It is my understanding that someone named or that goes by the name of "Sandstein" is responsible for the intent to remove Walter Burien's bio. I'm curious as to the backgound, origin, and motivation of this identity, "Sandstein". What is to gain by this? Who is to gain? Why delete something if there nothing to be hidden?

"Sandstein" should identify himself or herself and allow debate, perhaps, as to whether they are deserving of such editorial totalitarianism. The obvious answer is that they are not - but some people think they are a law unto themselves and dissenters must be eliminated. I remember some folks who have thought similarly since the 1930's or so - no, sorry, Lenin and Stalin were also favourite victms of that peculiar arrogance.

Does "Sandstein" have the courage to identify themselves and their rationale? Or is it merely a political cover, a bald-faced case of chicken-(parts)?

The Sandstein identifying info was located in the Wiki archives. It was posted to this string on June 22nd and on June 23rd Sandstein deleted the information and deleted the link archive on Wiki blocking the logs so the information could not be seen that he deleted.

INFO DELETED: He worked for the Swiss Federal Court and was a officer in the Swiss Army and identified himself as a liberal. The exact text from the Wiki archive I saved Sandstein with a snap shot. So your deletion did not destroy the evidence of who you are. (I should say were being an old archive) I have asked my Swiss contacts to look closer and I am currently working on identifying who you work for now. It will be irrelevant if you delete this note to all on Wiki. The complete dossier on who you are and what you did will be mass published very soon worldwide outside of your control to delete it but more importantly disclosed is: "who" you did it for and through whom that request was made. No accountability, no consequences.

Consequences through open worldwide disclosure are about to come to play. Have a good day Sandstein and tell you instructing bosses they are about to experience the disclosure hot-seat without equal of consequences that establishes intent for the acts committed... And Wiki, you are the true underling responsible party for the acts of Sandstein.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.199.89 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by Duncan Druhl, druhl@druhl.com; also author of the previous, far too long opinion, as one gets used to being paid by the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.250.220 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is solely a matter of reliable sources with significant coverage, things like book reviews, newspaper articles, etc. Without those, he is not consider notable. If you look over WP:AFD you'll see lots of biographical articles get deleted for exactly the same reasons. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is strongly suggested that Walter Burien not be deleted. His information is informative and exposes the government rip-off of the American people. Walter Burien is essentially a Whistleblower and a patriot. Because some government types don't like his uncovering the great American financial scam, they want him off the internet. This is a violation of Burien's, and everyone else's, First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Protest.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director DADS--Dads Against Discrimination Fathers' Rights Consultant b_eden@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.31.116 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Wikipedia for years and ONLY on this instance have I actually felt it important enough to become a member so I can say that Walter Burien has ONLY stated fact and has information very real and very helpful to society as a whole! The person who set his bio up for deletion is trying to silence Walters ideas, We should ban this persons' ability to edit here at Wikipedia and out his full profile and info so Walter and the rest of us know this UnAmericans' name. WE love you Walt, and we appreciate you and your information! Mrjoeman (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC) mrjoeman[reply]

Mr Burien's insights into the corporate financial world are phenomenal, and the world needs more of his ideas. Wikipedia is a wonderful medium for sharing his message

Walter's tireless work is also very much appreciated across the world: his very good work and wise words are keenly perused by off-shore New Zealanders, as well as in Mainland States.

Some of us here downunder are unfortunately under the delusion we're immune from such illicit methods of fiscal mismanagement of public funds as have been adopted by quasi-private unelected bureaucrats placed in powerful positions of US governance.

Intelligent Kiwis are always eager to read Walter's writings, and we demand this information continues to be available ever-expanding on Wikipedia

Mike Rose Hommedespoir (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Retired architect, Auckland, NZ[reply]

You are certainly welcome to research the topic, find some reliable sources that can be verified and bring them up here. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You are certainly welcome to research the topic, find some reliable sources that can be verified  and bring them up here. --Nuujinn  (talk)  14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)"

 http://cafr1.com/STATES/ 

"OK Nuujinn, here within the link above as an example are over 100 CAFR and Federal reports out of the 184,000 (Noted by GFOA as of 2007) large and small produced each year showing the scope and size of the financial holdings of each of these local and federal entities.

These are our own government's reports of which they spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to produce. A review of all or any of them will show the scope and size of the holdings from each as noted clearly by Mr. Burien but excluded for mention by the same political bodies involved with each.

Now think of the collective totals from all if considered. A true and audited showing of our own government's holdings; income; and financial structure from their own reports I think you will agree is an overpowering reference of: "reliable sources" that can be "verified". And PS Nuujinn, thanks for asking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.242.57.193 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, no. I click on the URL, and I click through to the first PDF and I find a report apparently prepared by Mr. Burien. Whatever value that report has in terms of showing problems with the US government, spending, debt, corruption, etc, it does nothing to establish the notability of Mr. Burien himself. For one thing, these would be considered primary sources, and here on wikipedia, we value secondary sources. Also, the topic of the reports isn't Mr. Burien, so it doesn't count as significant coverage. If you all want to establish Mr. Burien's notability, what you need to find are things like newspaper and magazine articles. For example, I have no idea if this is the same person, but this newspaper article and this article are the kinds of things that can help establish notability--but you'd need a few of them, and not just local coverage. Also, please note that we insist on neutral point of view in terms of content and tone--wikipedia is not a whistler blower site. And I'm not saying I'll help you all with this, I'm not sure at all that an article on Mr. Burien is appropriate here, but you all should know the rules and have a fair shot if you're interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few "Press Articles" and other verifiable "News" coverage items. I note that many news services do not archive on the internet before 2005 and only a few back to 1989 so much can not be pulled up on the internet now in 2010:

1. World Net Daily - (WND.com one of the most read online News Services worldwide - a "Mainline" News source) Four articles, one article by the editor Joseph Farah - http://www.wnd.com/?s=CAFR

2. Picture of Walter Burien (Bubien) 1990 meeting with NJ Governor Jim Florio from the Star Ledger a "Mainline News Paper"(covered by ABC - CBS - CNN - WOR network TV News and about 50 other news services) - http://cafr1.com/Pictures/HANJ1990JF.jpg

3. News Articles per Walter Burien from the Prescott Courier "an AZ Mainline Newspaper" - CAFR work; run for Mayor Prescott, AZ; US Patent Article; and even some spokesperson comments AZ Militia - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Walter%20Burien%22%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers&gws_rd=ssl

4. News Articles and Web Articles Walter Burien (Bubien) per CAFR disclosure - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Walter+Burien%22+%22Comprehensive+Annual+Financial+Report%22&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&biw=1366&bih=605&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A5%2F1%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F5%2F2015&tbm=nws#q=%22Walter+Burien%22+%22Comprehensive+Annual+Financial+Report%22&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0

5. Media Bypass Magazine a monthly national publication (no longer published) did a Cover Story on Walter Burien's CAFR work in the Feb 2001 issue. There is no archive on the internet of the 12 page article so here is a copy of the Cover of that issue - http://cafr1.com/Pictures/M_Bypass.JPG

6. From the Idaho Observer News Service published monthly and distributed nationally, here is the text of five articles published on Walter Burien's work - http://www.google.com/search?q=Walter+Burien&btnG=Search&domains=proliberty.com&sitesearch=proliberty.com

7. From the Star Ledger Newspaper (dialy circulation over 1 million) from back during the Hands Across New Jersey days - two articles (they charge a small fee to view the articles) - http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_widesearch=yes&p_multi=BYJ2%7CBNB7%7CCSNS%7CCCNJ%7CDVNF%7CHUDB%7CETEB%7CGCTW%7CHNN9%7CHCDB%7CHOFB%7CIPNB%7CNJJ2%7CKRJ2%7CNSPR%7CSTL2%7CTTTB%7CTSSB%7CWRHB%7CWFJ2%7CWRPW%7C&p_product=STLNP&p_theme=stlnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Walter%20Bubien%20AND%20date%281/1/1989%20to%206/16/1991%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/1989%20to%206/16/1991%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28Walter%20Bubien%29&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

8. From 1998 until 2008 Walter Burien did over 500 radio programs large and small. Many of these radio shows are not archived but a Google search to find some radio programs from within the hits done by Walter Burien, programs that over the years reached tens of millions of people in the US and worldwide is as follows (about 1260 hits) - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Walter+Burien%22+Guest+Radio+show+listen+mp3&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f6f642595e92e50c ** One 2-hour show was on Coast to Coast with George Noory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5XbvCRHYIk heard by millions.

9. Two US Patents held by Walter Burien (Bubien) - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8112114.pdf and http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5638433.pdf

10. Registered with the Federal Government through the CFTC's (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) registration arm of NFA (National Futures Association)as a CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor) from 1983 to 1992 - http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Details.aspx?entityid=6soRnI%2be1Vk%3d from 1978 to 1982 before NFA was created his registration was directly with the CFTC.

With the above verifiable "News Service" and other source information, just a small fraction therefrom completely validates Wikipedia's standards for Walter Burien's BIO being on Wikipedia and validates it should not have been deleted in the first place. A BIO that was up on Wikipedia for almost seven years. Wikipedia's reinstatement of the BIO or deletion maintained will be a clear showing of acknowledgment of standards expressed or showing on Wikipedia's part of clear bias shown. Walter's BIO for reference by Wikipedia has been on his own site for years - http://CAFR1.com/BIO.html

PS: Nuujinn, you commented on the "one" flier circular in the CAFR1 Download directory but not the hundred or so CAFR / Federal financial reports you were directed to look at. Your not sidestepping important disclosure now are you? Look and see what you were never intended to look at and join the Human Race. It will do you a world of good.. In 2014 Walter updated his listing page to now show about 4500 example CAFRs all listed by category and state (long page) - http://CAFR1.com/listings/Listings.html

Please be civil. Whether I'm a member of the human race in your view is simply not relevant. Now, if the article contained some of the source you list above, it might not have been deleted. Material from print sources does not have to be available online, but it helps immensely if you can provide quotes from same. I don't believe that he meets the criteria for notability of elected officials, see Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Please note that the number of google hits, or radio shows, or appearances isn't relevant--there are many many good people who regularly appear in new and radio who do not meet the notability requirement. What is needed is significant coverage of the man himself in reliable sources. Regarding http://proliberty.com/observer, that appears to be a web site representing content from other sources, and not a newspaper--if the Idaho Observer is a newspaper, getting references from the original would be much better (since sources have to be verifiable--not online, but verifiable). Given the tone of the articles and the ears attached to President Obama's head here, I don't really think it's a reliable publication. But in any case, as an example, my take on those:

• [1]-This appears to be a reprint of an article that Burien himself author and submitted to snopes.com. It's not about Burien and he's the author, so it doesn't help establish notability of him.
• [2]-This mentions Burien, but only in passing, it's really about a reaction to a CBS story. Mentions in passing do not hurt, but do not count as significant coverage.
• [3]-also passing mention.
• [4]-A site map, no help.
• [5]-This one's not bad, although I'm not sure the source would be considered reliable, it the kind of article you all need. Same for [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6265], but it would be much better if these were in mainline news sources.

The most promising material, I think, are the newspaper article related to the militias. I don't think it's enough, but it is coverage in reliable sources. Can't speak to what's behind the paywalls, other than if you have access to them, you can use them (but I'm not paying to see them myself). It's true that the internet doesn't contain everything, but keep checking the Google new archives, there's a lot of stuff going up there as newspapers get scanned.

I hope that helps clarify things. The key thing is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we try to be neutral in content and tone, and rely on reliable secondary sources. I know it's not intuitive, but Wikipedia is not about the truth (Wikipedia is not a lot of things, see WP:NOT for more examples, esp WP:SOAP). If you all want to have another go, I'd suggest that someone with an account create the article in their userspace using the article wizard, and work on it there. When you're ready for feedback, you can post a request to WP:RFF. I don't want to get your hopes up tho, since I don't think he's notable in the narrow sense that wikipedia uses. There are other venues you might consider as well, such as conservapedia. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT know that Wikipedia was manipulation information. I did not know that Wikipedia is trying to suppress knowledge and information. This is a scandal. It shakes my entire picture of Wikipedia being a unbiased source of information. I think European media should follow this issue. I will take care about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.97 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know who ist "Sandstein" ? May be he is employed by IDF or CIA or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.97 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn:

Why not a mention of:

1. World Net Daily - (WND.com one of the most read online News Services worldwide) Four articles, one article by the editor Joseph Farah - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.search&keywords=CAFR&search_WND.x=0&search_WND.y=0

2. Picture of Walter Burien (Bubien) 1990 meeting with NJ Governor Jim Florio (covered by ABC - CBS - CNN - WOR and about 50 other news services) - http://cafr1.com/Pictures/HANJ1990JF.jpg

WND is one of the top online news services in the world. The Burien and Florio pic was covered by the primary papers and TV News in NJ, PA, and NY. The Idaho Observer article text is from their published editions and noted as to each. Are you looking to justify a fault or comment on established notable coverage. It appears from your total omission of the strongest and focus on your interpretation of the weakest shows me and others an obvious perpetuation of intent to justify "Sanstein's" deletion.

Also it was probably just a coincidence that the deletion took place on 06/ 13/10 when the Wikipedia BIO of Walter Burien had reached the number two hit spot on a Google Search for Walter Burien http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Walter+Burien&aq=f&aqi=g9g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CN6qSvwwbTKfJBorAM5SijMkFAAAAqgQFT9CKKHQ&fp=d2eda4910a7445ea (552,000 hits noted) and in " " 72,100 hits noted.

Well, because I didn't look at everything in the list. Please remember, I'm not hear to argue with you all--my purpose is to try to help you all understand a bit about wikipedia procedures and policies. I may not think that Burien meets wikipedia's threshold of notability, but I think you all should be in a position to make as good a case as you can if you try to recreate the article. As for the world net daily, the interview is the right type of article, but WND does not seem (to me) to be a very good source since they have a clear point of view, "WorldNetDaily.com is a fiercely independent newssite committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse." But sure, that seems like a reasonable reference to include, although I think it's reliability will come up. If you want to find out whether it would be considered a reliable source, you might bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and ask if that interview would meet the criteria. As for the picture, it by itself isn't useful since it's basically a passing mention, but most importantly, it's just a clipping with no data on the newspaper or date--and thus it can't be verified. If you can reference the paper, as well as the news coverage in national TV, that would be much better. Remember, the references do not have to be available online, but you do need to provide enough data to enable others to track down the source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn:

Your example of justification of why you did not look at the primary news articles and tried to find fault in the smaller is a clear showing of intentional bias. Wikipedia is your site, do as you wish. Censor, delete, polarize, or propagandize.

I contacted Google today and had them delete the Wikipedia hit from their search engine on a search for the name: Walter Burien of which it was #2 out of 540,000

Wikipedia as of today will not be getting the many hits directed to its site through the use of a search on Walter Burien's name any more. The 539,999 other hits on a search for Walter Burien will remain.

Wikipedia over the last several years had a quick up hill run being know for open source information that attracted many to the site. Your showing here is just one more brick taken out of the foundation of Wikipedia that will inevitably create the reputation for Wikipedia of a politically controlled media shill management company that will start and extenuate the icy slip back down the hill.

So once again, Wikipedia is your site. Do as you wish. Search hits and traffic therefrom of people searching for the BIO of Walter Burien will be directed to - http://CAFR1.com/BIO.html and not Wikipedia due to the censorship and bias clearly shown.

Um, Wikipedia isn't my site. And like I said, I'm not here to argue with you. As for having google delete the wikipedia hit for Walter Burien: thanks! Doesn't make much sense to have google direct people here if there's not article. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_____________

POST NOTE: Google took down stripping the Wikipedia search result for "Walter Burien" at Walter Burien's request that came up as the 2nd hit on the 19th, but it appears when Wikipedia was informed of this through the above comment, Wikipedia objected to Google and on the 20th it was reinstated into the search results. Nuujinn, go figure..