Wikipedia is Marxist Propaganda, Dismissed on Sight

IBDaMann

IBDaMann

Well-known member
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is a leftist disinformation site posing as a neutral, unbaised, dispassionate, exhaustively researched, truthful, wholesome family information center. Wikipedia simply tows the leftist partisan line and should be ignored or dismissed on sight.

Please use this thread to cite your own examples.

Gun Control:

Wikipedia does not include any specific arguments about why gun control is bad and how it leads to tyranny, or why a country such as the US would have a 2nd Amendment and merely asserts that there are "some" who hold this position. Only the following content is offered, none of which is honest and most of which involves major inaccuracies:

A 1998 review found that suicide rates generally declined after gun control laws were enacted, and concluded, "The findings support gun control measures as a strategy for reducing suicide rates."[31] A 2016 review found that laws banning people under restraining orders due to domestic violence convictions from accessing guns were associated with "reductions in intimate partner homicide".[32] Another 2016 review identified 130 studies regarding restrictive gun laws and found that the implementation of multiple such laws simultaneously was associated with a decrease in gun-related deaths.[33] According to Vox, "The authors are careful to note that their findings do not conclusively prove that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths. However, they did find a compelling trend whereby new restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership tended to be followed by a decline in gun deaths."[34]

According to a 2011 UN study, after identifying a number of methodological problems, it stated "notwithstanding such challenges, a significant body of literature tends to suggest that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide. In particular, a number of quantitative studies tend towards demonstrating a firearm prevalence–homicide association."[35]

In 1983, a cross-sectional study of all 50 U.S. states found that the six states with the strictest gun laws (according to the National Rifle Association of America) had suicide rates that were approximately 3/100,000 people lower than in other states, and that these states' suicide rates were 4/100,000 people lower than those of states with the least restrictive gun laws.[40] A 2003 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at the restrictiveness of gun laws and suicide rates in men and women in all 50 U.S. states and found that states whose gun laws were more restrictive had lower suicide rates among both sexes.[41] In 2004, another study found that the effect of state gun laws on gun-related homicides was "limited".[42] A 2005 study looked at all 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, and found that no gun laws were associated with reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, but that a "shall-issue" concealed carry law (mandatory issue of a license when legal criteria met) may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates.[43] A 2011 study found that firearm regulation laws in the United States have "a significant deterrent effect on male suicide".[44]

A 2013 study by the American Medical Association found that in the United States, "a higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in that state."[45] A 2016 study published in The Lancet found that of 25 laws studied, and in the time period examined (2008–2010), nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality (including both homicide and suicide), nine were associated with increased mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. The three laws most strongly associated with reduced firearm mortality were laws requiring universal background checks, background checks for ammunition sales, and identification for guns.[46] In an accompanying commentary, David Hemenway noted that this study had multiple limitations, such as not controlling for all factors that may influence gun-related deaths aside from gun control laws, and the use of 29 explanatory variables in the analysis.[47]

Other studies comparing gun control laws in different U.S. states include a 2015 study which found that in the United States, "stricter state firearm legislation is associated with lower discharge rates" for nonfatal gun injuries.[48] A 2014 study that also looked at the United States found that children living in states with stricter gun laws were safer.[49] Another study looking specifically at suicide rates in the United States found that the four handgun laws examined (waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations) were associated with "significantly lower firearm suicide rates and the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms." The study also found that all four of these laws (except the waiting-period one) were associated with reductions in the overall suicide rate.[50]

Another study, published the same year, found that states with permit to purchase, registration, and/or license laws for handguns had lower overall suicide rates, as well as lower firearm suicide rates.[51] A 2014 study found that states that required licensing and inspections of gun dealers tended to have lower rates of gun homicides.[52] Another study published the same year, analyzing panel data from all 50 states, found that stricter gun laws may modestly reduce gun deaths.[53] A 2016 study found that U.S. military veterans tend to commit suicide with guns more often than the general population, thereby possibly increasing state suicide rates, and that "the tendency for veterans to live in states without handgun legislation may exacerbate this phenomenon."[54] California has exceptionally strict gun sales laws, and a 2015 study found that it also had the oldest guns recovered in crimes of any states in the U.S. The same study concluded that "These findings suggest that more restrictive gun sales laws and gun dealer regulations do make it more difficult for criminals to acquire new guns first purchased at retail outlets."[55]

A New York Times study reported how outcomes of active shooter attacks varied with actions of the attacker, the police (42% of total incidents), and bystanders (including a "good guy with a gun" outcome in 5.1% of total incidents).[56]
Another 2016 study found that stricter state gun laws in the United States reduced suicide rates.[57] Another 2016 study found that U.S. states with lenient gun control laws had more gun-related child injury hospital admissions than did states with stricter gun control laws.[58] A 2017 study found that suicide rates declined more in states with universal background check and mandatory waiting period laws than in states without these laws.[59] Another 2017 study found that states without universal background check and/or waiting period laws had steeper increases in their suicide rates than did states with these laws.[60] A third 2017 study found that "waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%."[61] A 2017 study in the Economic Journal found that mandatory handgun purchase delays reduced "firearm-related suicides by between 2 and 5 percent with no statistically significant increase in non-firearm suicides," and were "not associated with statistically significant changes in homicide rates."[62] Another 2017 study showed that laws banning gun possession by people subject to intimate partner violence restraining orders, and requiring such people to give up any guns they have, were associated with lower intimate partner homicide rates.[63] A 2021 study found that firearm purchase delay laws reduced homicide – the authors suggested that it was driven by reductions in gun purchases by impulsive customers.[64]
Click to expand...

I am including here only one-third of the leftist propaganda for stronger gun control that, once again, makes no mention of any of the cornucopia of arguments for eliminating all gun control. Suffice to say that anyone referring to Wikipedia as a "good starting point" is doing himself a grave disservice.


Illegal Immigration:

According to Wikipedia's stated rules about neutrality, this term should merely be defined and should offer relevant statistics without getting into opinions, and especially should not be glorifying those who break the law. Instead, Wikipedia starts by explaining how dehumanizing US and Canadian law is by using the term "alien" and offers these stats:

Defining the legal term alien as "any person, not a citizen or national of the United States,"[4] The terminology used in Title 8 includes illegal alien (33 times), unauthorized alien (21 times), undocumented alien (18 times), illegal immigrant (6 times), undocumented person (2 times), and others.
Click to expand...

Remember, this is supposed to be the article on illegal immigration ... not immigrants.

Some campaigns discourage the use of the term illegal immigrant, generally based on the argument that the act of immigrating illegally does not make the people themselves illegal, but rather they are "people who have immigrated illegally." In Europe, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) launched its international "Words Matter"[7] campaign in 2014 to promote the use of the terms undocumented or irregular migrants instead of illegal.[8][9][10][11] Depending on jurisdiction, culture, or context, alternatives to illegal aliens or illegal immigrants can include irregular migrants, undocumented immigrants, undocumented persons, and unauthorized immigrants.[12][13][5][4]

In some contexts the term illegal immigrants is shortened, often pejoratively,[14] to illegals.[15][16][17][18]

Some news associations have discontinued or discouraged the term illegal immigrant, except in quotations. These organizations presently include the Associated Press (US),[19] Press Association (UK), European Journalism Observatory,[20] European Journalism Centre,[21] Association of European Journalists, Australian Press Council,[22] and Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (AU).[23]
Click to expand...

Once we get past the touching empathy for poor, illegal immigrants, we finally get to some effects of illegal immigration. Parts in red are simply false, and are nonetheless locked down by Wikipedia admin:

Research on the economic effects of illegal immigration is scant but existing studies suggest that the effects can be positive for the native population,[38][39] and for public coffers.[40][41] One 2015 study shows that "increasing deportation rates and tightening border control weakens low-skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment of native low-skilled workers. Legalization, instead, decreases the unemployment rate of low-skilled natives and increases income per native." This is because the presence of illegal immigrants reduces the labor costs of employers, providing them more opportunities to create more jobs.[42]
Click to expand...

Then we get into the plight of the illegal alien:

In the US, only 12% of the labor force has less than a high school education, but 70% of illegal workers from Mexico lack a high school degree.[47] The majority of new blue-collar jobs qualify as Massey's "underclass" work and suffer from unreliability, subservient roles and, critically, a lack of potential for advancement.
Click to expand...

Then the reasons for illegal immigration are listed: poverty, asylum, overpopulation and family reunification. Then we delve further into the plight of illegal immigrants: lack of access to services, slavery, kidnapping and ransoms, sexual exploitation, exploitation of labor, injury and illness, and death. Then the methods employed to achieve illegal immigration are listed: border crossing, human smuggling, overstaying visas, sham marriages. Then we get to numbers of illegal immigrants for some countries, and the US is not one of them, and Canada apparently has no useful documentation.

Suffice to say that anyone referring to Wikipedia as a "good starting point" is doing himself a grave disservice.

This is all for which I have time at the moment. I will add more later.
 
Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. On political subjects it is particularly poor from any direction because of it. It doesn't make Wiki "Marxist" but rather subject to politics and correction by others.

For example,

In 1983, a cross-sectional study of all 50 U.S. states found that the six states with the strictest gun laws (according to the National Rifle Association of America) had suicide rates that were approximately 3/100,000 people lower than in other states, and that these states' suicide rates were 4/100,000 people lower than those of states with the least restrictive gun laws.[40] A 2003 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at the restrictiveness of gun laws and suicide rates in men and women in all 50 U.S. states and found that states whose gun laws were more restrictive had lower suicide rates among both sexes.[41] In 2004, another study found that the effect of state gun laws on gun-related homicides was "limited".[42] A 2005 study looked at all 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, and found that no gun laws were associated with reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, but that a "shall-issue" concealed carry law (mandatory issue of a license when legal criteria met) may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates.[43] A 2011 study found that firearm regulation laws in the United States have "a significant deterrent effect on male suicide".[44]
Click to expand...

Quoted from OP

Without looking at these studies, I question the validity of all of them. It would be nearly impossible to identify and control for all major variables in them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
Correction: anyone can be a "contributor."

The administrators of Wikipedia are hard-line Marxists and "lock down" all political content after they have worded it to toe the party line. At that point, no "contributor" can alter it. Attempts by any "contributor" to rewrite any of their propaganda to make it fall in line with Wikipedia's stated, published "policies" are instantly thwarted.

T. A. Gardner said:
Quoted from OP Without looking at these studies, I question the validity of all of them.
Click to expand...
Very wise. Studies are nothing but subjective opinions pretending to be neutral, unbiased and dispassionate objective truth. Marxists exist to produce "studies" that glamorize their Marxist crap while demonizing, or at a minimum gaslighting, opposing views.

Wikipedia only provides these kinds of "studies", and never provides anything that debunks any of them.
 
We are all aware of the Leftist penchant for generating fear using the "King's Robes" assertion, i.e. a nonexistent problem that is nonetheless declared to be an invisible existential threat to humanity. Leftists fall for this every time and PANIC on cue, e.g. COVID, Global Warming, ocean acidification, etc ...

Let's look at two of Wikipedia's entries supporting this very effort, of things that simply do not exist. Notice the death-struggle to plausibly explain why they just cannot be observed.

Great Pacific garbage patch​

Coordinates:
17px-WMA_button2b.png
38°N 145°W
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Trash Island" redirects here. For the Drain Gang album, see Trash Island (album). For other marine gyres in the world's oceans, see garbage patch.
Great Pacific garbage patch in August 2015 (model)The patch is created in the gyre of the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone.
The Great Pacific garbage patch (also Pacific trash vortex and North Pacific garbage patch[1]) is a garbage patch, a gyre of marine debris particles, in the central North Pacific Ocean. It is located roughly from 135°W to 155°W and 35°N to 42°N.[2] The collection of plastic and floating trash originates from the Pacific Rim, including countries in Asia, North America, and South America.[3]
Despite the common public perception of the patch existing as giant islands of floating garbage, its low density (4 particles per cubic metre (3.1/cu yd)) prevents detection by satellite imagery, or even by casual boaters or divers in the area. This is because the patch is a widely dispersed area consisting primarily of suspended "fingernail-sized or smaller"—often microscopic—particles in the upper water column known as microplastics.[4] Researchers from The Ocean Cleanup project claimed that the patch covers 1.6 million square kilometres (620,000 square miles)[5] consisting of 45,000–129,000 metric tons (50,000–142,000 short tons) of plastic as of 2018.[6] The same 2018 study found that, while microplastics dominate the area by count, 92% of the mass of the patch consists of larger objects which have not yet fragmented into microplastics. Some of the plastic in the patch is over 50 years old, and includes items (and fragments of items) such as "plastic lighters, toothbrushes, water bottles, pens, baby bottles, cell phones, plastic bags, and nurdles".
Click to expand...


North Atlantic garbage patch​

The North Atlantic Gyre is one of five major ocean gyres.
The North Atlantic garbage patch is a garbage patch of man-made marine debris found floating within the North Atlantic Gyre, originally documented in 1972.[1] A 22-year research study conducted by the Sea Education Association estimates the patch to be hundreds of kilometers across, with a density of more than 200,000 pieces of debris per square kilometer.[2][3][4][5] The garbage originates from human-created waste traveling from rivers into the ocean and mainly consists of microplastics.[6] The garbage patch is a large risk to wildlife (and to humans) through plastic consumption and entanglement.[7] There have only been a few awareness and clean-up efforts for the North Atlantic garbage patch, such as The Garbage Patch State at UNESCO and The Ocean Cleanup, as most of the research and cleanup efforts have been focused on the Great Pacific garbage patch, a similar garbage patch in the north Pacific.[8][9]

Characteristics​

Location and size​

The patch is located from 22°N to 38°N and its western and eastern boundaries are unclear.[5] The debris zone shifts by as much as 1,600 km (1,000 mi) north and south seasonally, and drifts even farther south during the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, according to the NOAA.[3] The patch is estimated to be hundreds of kilometers across in size,[3] with a density of more than 200,000 pieces of debris per square kilometer (one piece per five square metres, on average).[5][10] The concentration of plastic in the North Atlantic garbage patch has stayed mostly constant even though global plastic production has increased five-fold over the course of the 22-year study.[11] This may be caused by the plastics sinking beneath the surface or breaking down into smaller pieces that can pass through the net.[11] Because of this, it is thought that the size of the North Atlantic garbage patch could be an underestimate. It is likely that when the microplastics are taken into account, the patch could be as large as the Great Pacific garbage patch.[12]

Sources​

The North Atlantic garbage patch originates from human-created waste that travels from continental rivers into the ocean.[13] Once the trash has made it into the ocean, it is centralized by gyres, which collect trash in large masses.[11] The surface of the garbage patch consists of microplastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene which make up common household items.[6] Denser material that is thought to exist under the surface of the ocean includes plastic called polyethylene terephthalate that is used to make soft drink and water bottles.[6] However, these denser plastics are not observed in the North Atlantic garbage patch because the methods to collect samples only capture the surface microplastics.[6]
Click to expand...
 
IBDaMann said:
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is a leftist disinformation site posing as a neutral, unbaised, dispassionate, exhaustively researched, truthful, wholesome family information center. Wikipedia simply tows the leftist partisan line and should be ignored or dismissed on sight.

Please use this thread to cite your own examples.

Gun Control:

Wikipedia does not include any specific arguments about why gun control is bad and how it leads to tyranny, or why a country such as the US would have a 2nd Amendment and merely asserts that there are "some" who hold this position. Only the following content is offered, none of which is honest and most of which involves major inaccuracies:



I am including here only one-third of the leftist propaganda for stronger gun control that, once again, makes no mention of any of the cornucopia of arguments for eliminating all gun control. Suffice to say that anyone referring to Wikipedia as a "good starting point" is doing himself a grave disservice.


Illegal Immigration:

According to Wikipedia's stated rules about neutrality, this term should merely be defined and should offer relevant statistics without getting into opinions, and especially should not be glorifying those who break the law. Instead, Wikipedia starts by explaining how dehumanizing US and Canadian law is by using the term "alien" and offers these stats:



Remember, this is supposed to be the article on illegal immigration ... not immigrants.



Once we get past the touching empathy for poor, illegal immigrants, we finally get to some effects of illegal immigration. Parts in red are simply false, and are nonetheless locked down by Wikipedia admin:



Then we get into the plight of the illegal alien:



Then the reasons for illegal immigration are listed: poverty, asylum, overpopulation and family reunification. Then we delve further into the plight of illegal immigrants: lack of access to services, slavery, kidnapping and ransoms, sexual exploitation, exploitation of labor, injury and illness, and death. Then the methods employed to achieve illegal immigration are listed: border crossing, human smuggling, overstaying visas, sham marriages. Then we get to numbers of illegal immigrants for some countries, and the US is not one of them, and Canada apparently has no useful documentation.

Suffice to say that anyone referring to Wikipedia as a "good starting point" is doing himself a grave disservice.

This is all for which I have time at the moment. I will add more later.
Click to expand...
In Wikipedia's entry on capitalism:
n free market and laissez-faire forms of capitalism, markets are used most extensively with minimal or no regulation over the pricing mechanism. In mixed economies, which are almost universal today,[106] markets continue to play a dominant role, but they are regulated to some extent by the state in order to correct market failures, promote social welfare, conserve natural resources, fund defense and public safety or other rationale. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on state-owned enterprises or indirect economic planning to accumulate capital.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. This is Marxism under the entry of 'Capitalism'.
 
The proof is that the majority the money they take in goes to WOKE projects, not site operation. I rarely use it now except for looking up movies more than 20 years old. They raise $175 million a year, have only $14 million in property and equipment, and the majority of their labor is free.....you do the math.
 
If you want to go through their books and see the game investments is the place to concentrate on. You can bet your house that they dont mean investment in the old America sense of parking money and growing wealth, they mean investment in the WOKE sense.....investing in the bus ride to UTOPIA.
 
IBDaMann said:
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is a leftist disinformation site posing as a neutral, unbaised, dispassionate, exhaustively researched, truthful, wholesome family information center. Wikipedia simply tows the leftist partisan line and should be ignored or dismissed on sight.
Click to expand...

Yet Wikipedia is widely accepted as an authoritative source and has become the most used general information source in the country; it is used across the world. If it's "leftist disinformation" why is griping such as yours the only antidote from the Right. Where is your corrective "authoritative source", giving the world the true information it very much needs and cure this Marxist infection?

The answer must be what is widely suspected: that the Right has no answer because the Right is full of know nothings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top