You must log in or register to comment.
They have Radio Free Asia as a greenlisted reliable source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
So anything on Radio Free Asia is considered verified by Wikipedia’s standards.
Radio Free Asia is openly a branch of the USA’s government. It was created by Bill Clinton’s government.
Ctrl+F
Radio Free Asiaon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China gives 32 resultsBut not any decent non Western or left publication.
I scanned and Jacobin, al-Jazeera, The New Republic are the best there.
Voice of America is also greenlisted.
Wikileaks is verboten even though Wikileaks has never been known to publish a single fake document.
I remember that al-Jazeera recently wasn’t allowed for Israel, but I’m too lazy to look it up now.
but I’m too lazy to look it up now.
This is how they getchu
Lol its edit protected. So much for “Anyone can edit”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
gangster
Lol
Every time Amerika commits evil, it’s “allegations”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_biological_warfare_in_the_Korean_War
Even the Native American genocide gets the passive tense
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States
Every time Amerika commits evil, it’s “allegations”:
That’s pretty funny; I never noticed that.
The destruction of Native American peoples, cultures, and languages has been characterized as genocide. Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not.
Victims: 98% loss of ancestral homelands
Jesus the Native American one is incredibly evil.
deleted by creator
I know we have a tendency to notice specifically the aspects of Wikipedia that consolidate the worldview of the State Department, but it seems there’s also some very active Catholic editing to discredit any critique of any popes. I fell into a wild Wikipedia rabbit hole last year on this topic, and the more “Talk” pages I read and edits I followed I now think there’s some Vatican deep state that has a small but dedicated Wikipedia army lol.
Anyways my favourite of the thing you’re looking for is that the most closely guarded claim I’ve seen on Wikipedia is on the Working Time page: "Standard working hours of countries worldwide are around 40 to 44 hours per week (but not everywhere: from 35 hours per week in France[4] to up to 105 hours per week in North Korean labor camps)]. Source? A defector who left Korea 30 years ago who said “Those accommodated are mobilized for forced labor from 5:00am to 7:00pm in winter, and till 8:00pm in summer.”
There’s a whole atheist ‘le sceptic’ agenda to edit it too that I got in trouble once for talking about.
Ya I got a lot of push back when I mentioned that a lot if the skeptic pages are sourced with blogs.
There’s even a book-length treatment of Psi Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet
The sort of dogmatic idiots who write RationalWiki are blatant in brigading wikipedia for their agenda.
Even their own side criticised their tactics: https://medium.com/@kattours/guerrilla-skeptics-on-wikipedia-gsow-was-founded-in-2010-by-susan-gerbic-who-was-also-a-founder-74226822a59
Saints, too. The Padre Pio page is hilariously written in two voices, one that believes all supernatural phenomena, and one that keeps repeating that he bought carbolic acid one town over so as to fake his stigmata.
Haha wow that’s interesting
They don’t fuck, so they got nothing else to do 🤷🏻♂️
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation
Vs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
(It used to be worse, because the latter article used to be called “Uyghur genocide”)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Found myself here a while back. Was having fun reading up ancient aliens and stuff and then saw they listed Historical Materialism. Their reason? Some conservative philosopher said “nu uh”
Wikipedia has Reddit brain. Any article about any subject is viewed equal. Except when the article is a primary or secondary source (those are too biased) or if they’re on the No-no list, or if they’re not on the Good list. I’ve seen “sources” that were 20 years behind the current science/level of discussion be used. Absolute joke of a “resource”.
My brother in christ this “pseudoscience” has predicted more things historically than any of your neoliberal financial nonsence you try to pass off as irrefutable facts and nature itself.
In fact nature itself IS materialism, it is literally a continuation of darwinistic thinking about evolution which has perfectly explained how we and everything around us came to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Commission
Accusations that the NKVD killed a bunch of Ukrainians and Poles for absolutely no reason other than “Stalin was evilly twirling his moustache”
Sources cited:
- Nazi Germany
- An “independent international commission” made up entirely of “experts” from Nazi-occupied Europe which were handpicked by the Nazi government, and agreed fully with initial Nazi “findings”
- A bunch of other random sources citing the “independent commission”
Note how the Katyn Commission article goes out of its way to avoid the word “Nazi,” only saying “Germany” and “Reich”
If you want a great example of “Our noble government; Their perfidious regime” or however the meme goes, compare these articles:
Holy propaganda Batman
deleted by creator
The execution van, also called a mobile execution unit, was developed by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)[citation needed] and was first used in 1997.[citation needed] The prisoner is strapped to a stretcher and executed inside the van.[citation needed] The van allows death sentences to be carried out without moving the prisoner to an execution ground.
The vans also require less staffing, requiring four people to assist with the injection and are mobile.[citation needed] The PRC states [citation needed] that the vans are more humane than previous forms of execution.
That may be the highest [citation needed] density I’ve ever seen.
Lmaooooo
I love how the only Chinese source is the fucking Wikipedia page lmao
Now get in the van
This thread should be retitled: “wikipedia pages you refuse to even look at just based on their names.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
While apparently unbiased and posting both sides of a discussion, this one sucks too. For a detailed breakdown of the sources, see https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho
Lots of the Holodomor editors are Ukrainian nationalists, and they’re chuddy af. Many of them will drop r slurs in the talk pages like it’s nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry is pretty bad. It makes the scientific literature seem much more one-sided than it is.
Ashkenazi Jews have genetic contributions from all over the place. There’s a political push to say they’re originally native to the Levant because of… well actually I don’t know why they’re pushing that line it’s a total mystery.
Wikipedia says “While the consensus in genetic research is that the world’s Jewish populations (including the Ashkenazim) share substantial genetic ancestry derived from a common Ancient Middle Eastern founder population, and that Ashkenazi Jews have no genetic ancestry attributable to Khazars” and cites Behar et al. (2013). “No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews” to support that claim. But you can’t cite one 2013 study and call that citation evidence of “consensus”. And the papers citing Behar et al. take a variety of positions on it. It’s a lie to call it a consensus.
I’d be curious to read a more unbiased take on this, but I have no idea where to look.
Edit: the consensus thing is common lie that Wikipedia editors like to push. Even official policy guides require the consensus to be cited, meaning that a reliable source should say it’s consensus, but right wing editors love to flout this and just show that 4 authors means consensus.
the Khazar hypothesis being bunk is not a zionist plot, all of these studies find european ancestry in addition to middle eastern if they don’t get caucausian. some genetic marker a person has being ‘from’ one region or another does not justify setting up an apartheid genocide regime there.
people do have a habit of declaring a ‘consensus’ due to a subjective valuation of the quality of the disputing voices, not how loud they are, though. and in this case, we have geneticists citing Koestler into the 2010s
Myth is such a kind word to used
This was my favorite line in the Cycling in North Korea article, although it’s now finally been removed because it seems to have been too much even for NATOpedia.
As with other reports from North Korea, whether the bicycle-sharing program is intended as a service for actual use by citizens (and not simply propaganda) cannot be confirmed.
We can’t possibly know whether nefarious North Korea intends bicycle sharing to be mere propaganda.
The bicycles are obviously props, no one really exists in North Korea but the Kim Jong Un family and the bodies of the Koreans he massacred himself
Geez, I don’t know. I would need a tool that can conveniently grab me every single page on Wikipedia that talks about Russian and Ukraine to get it all out.
Or maybe this one alone will tell you everything.
This isn’t propaganda, exactly, but it has the vibes of anti-Marxist misinformation (is that a thing?): Character mask. It’s absolutely incomprehensible and reads like an essay by someone obsessed with the history and theory of Marxism in a weird, unproductive way (you know those types). Naturally, it has remained essentially unchanged for a decade. Bonus points if anyone can figure out what micro-ideology its author is pushing, because I really can’t tell.
What is even going on here lmao
Huh i thought that was genuinely very interesting, and adds a little bit of nuance to a few points of Marx in capital where “charactermaske” was translated into something else.
Hard to say which specific branch the author belongs to, most of this looks to be a pretty good analysis and explanation of the concept and its usage and evolution, doea a good job at providing different interpretations, responses and critiques while still defending the original concept in some ways.
Where it gets dodgy is towards the end, the inclusion of modern or post “Marxists” that apply it to the USSR in (what looks to to me like) unproductive ways, and fucking zizek at the end, but that might have been a more recent edit
The Wikipedia article on me calls me a nerd
