Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

I have only a couple of comments -- I found religioustolerance.org for the first time last night. I was researching paganism and wicca v. witchcraft. At first, the site seemed religiously tolerant, but the more I read, the more the articles, with a slight word here and an innuendo there subtly contradicted what I knew to be historically fact... or if they did not rewrite history, the subtext spun the words so neatly that I didn't even notice at first that I was the one spinning in circles. Then I noticed that almost every single advertisement on the cite was for Christian book clubs and the like (which is odd, considering the next thing I noticed); because as I grew more and more uncomfortable with the subtext of the "tolerance," I decided to look up reviews of the website. They were primarily favorable; I discovered, however, that the individuals who were responsible for the entire website were Canadian Scientologists. I didn't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere on the site. Nor do I think of that as a particularly tolerant religion in particular ways -- just as there are very liberal and open-minded Christians, Pagans, Atheists, and Muslims, there are similar Scientologists. But if a doctor is to author a website on the best medical schools in the country, and he claims to be unbiased, he damn well better tell me he grew up in Cambridge, went to Harvard, Did his residency in Boston, and is a surgeon and tenured Medical Professor at Harvard University. The authors of religioustolerance.org may be legit, but after reading two or three articles, I didn't believe it, and when I discovered their personal affiliation, I didn't care that they had one, I just felt they should have openly disclosed it. So there it is. 1) i don't think their articles are as unbiased as they profess to be; I was, in fact, rather disturbed by some of the subtle prejudices *disguised* as tolerance in several of them; and 2) anyone with a strong religious affiliation can be tolerant, but to be ethical, that affiliation must be disclosed. It may have been somewhere on the website, but not clearly enought that I noticed it past the "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE > ORG" -- and that is, in and of itself, misleading... which begs the question, if the site is that unbiased and the authors that tolerant, why is it necessary to withhold, even momentarily, anything at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoebb (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 December 2005