Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[WhiteNight]

A 40,000 word article on a five-minute photo op:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

It includes a minute-by-minute timeline, as if anyone cares. But the main event is paragraph after paragraph of every dumb-ass they can quote condemning Trump for displacing the mostly peaceful protesters. However, it was known almost from the start, and confirmed by a report released in June, that the police cleared the square of rioters to establish a perimeter and it had nothing to do with Trump's photo op, which undercuts the entire premise of the article. The article mentions this fact in passing, then goes back to excoriating Trump for something he didn't do.

The protesters are called "peaceful" about twenty times, although the article does mention that "several fires were set" (really, by who?) and "more than sixty Secret Service agents were injured, and eleven were transported to the hospital".

 

[BiggerChungus]

A 40,000 word article on a five-minute photo op:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

It includes a minute-by-minute timeline, as if anyone cares. But the main event is paragraph after paragraph of every dumb-ass they can quote condemning Trump for displacing the mostly peaceful protesters. However, it was known almost from the start, and confirmed by a report released in June, that the police cleared the square of rioters to establish a perimeter and it had nothing to do with Trump's photo op, which undercuts the entire premise of the article. The article mentions this fact in passing, then goes back to excoriating Trump for something he didn't do.

The protesters are called "peaceful" about twenty times, although the article does mention that "several fires were set" (really, by who?) and "more than sixty Secret Service agents were injured, and eleven were transported to the hospital".

BLM or Antifa threatens death, throws rocks, burns down buildings: peaceful.
Someone wears a Trump hat or displays a Confederate flag: genocidal tyranny.

 

[Corpun]

A 40,000 word article on a five-minute photo op:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

It includes a minute-by-minute timeline, as if anyone cares. But the main event is paragraph after paragraph of every dumb-ass they can quote condemning Trump for displacing the mostly peaceful protesters. However, it was known almost from the start, and confirmed by a report released in June, that the police cleared the square of rioters to establish a perimeter and it had nothing to do with Trump's photo op, which undercuts the entire premise of the article. The article mentions this fact in passing, then goes back to excoriating Trump for something he didn't do.

The protesters are called "peaceful" about twenty times, although the article does mention that "several fires were set" (really, by who?) and "more than sixty Secret Service agents were injured, and eleven were transported to the hospital".

Does Trump saying "very fine people on both sides" have an article? I'm sure they could make an equally as retarded article on how Trump is a nazi from it.

 

[Art Kassul]

A 40,000 word article on a five-minute photo op:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

It includes a minute-by-minute timeline, as if anyone cares. But the main event is paragraph after paragraph of every dumb-ass they can quote condemning Trump for displacing the mostly peaceful protesters. However, it was known almost from the start, and confirmed by a report released in June, that the police cleared the square of rioters to establish a perimeter and it had nothing to do with Trump's photo op, which undercuts the entire premise of the article. The article mentions this fact in passing, then goes back to excoriating Trump for something he didn't do.

The protesters are called "peaceful" about twenty times, although the article does mention that "several fires were set" (really, by who?) and "more than sixty Secret Service agents were injured, and eleven were transported to the hospital".

That is the most autistic bit of insanity possible. 1/3 of the page is dedicated just to the 300 sources.


I do wonder what Trump meant by this.

Does Trump saying "very fine people on both sides" have an article? I'm sure they could make an equally as retarded article on how Trump is a nazi from it.

Unite the Right rally - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

his first statement and subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them. Critics interpreted his remarks as sympathetic to white supremacists,[8] while supporters characterized this interpretation as a hoax,[32] because Trump's "fine people" statement explicitly denounced white nationalists.

It is hilarious the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to make that statement into something devious or reprehensible.

 

[Corpun]

It is hilarious the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to make that statement into something devious or reprehensible.

To be fair the journoswine were twisting that from the very beginning, "What? You mean amid the pro-statue protests and anti-statue protests there were fine people? Obviously Trump wants to gas the Jews and lynch the blacks!"

They wouldn't of been happy unless Trump himself went on camera and executed David Duke and a dozen other totally not feds.

 

[WhiteNight]

Does Trump saying "very fine people on both sides" have an article? I'm sure they could make an equally as retarded article on how Trump is a nazi from it.

There's also coverage in this one, which says his comment "suggested a moral equivalence":

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That whole article is a comedy gold mine, an endless stream of insinuations and leaps of logic. There's the usual "Trump criticized X, X is black, therefore Trump is racist", and lots of guilt by association. Anyone Wikipedia doesn't like is of course called a white supremacist.

There's a section about how yes Trump pardoned a black woman (Alice Marie Johnson), but most people he pardoned weren't black, so he's still a racist.

A year later Trump said, "I condemn all types of racism and acts of violence." Wikipedia writes, "Critics contended that the wording 'all types of racism' could be seen as a veiled defense of white nationalists." You have to squint really hard to get the perspective of these "critics" whose opinion is worth including.

 

[Corpun]

There's also coverage in this one, which says his comment "suggested a moral equivalence":

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That whole article is a comedy gold mine, an endless stream of insinuations and leaps of logic. There's the usual "Trump criticized X, X is black, therefore Trump is racist", and lots of guilt by association. Anyone Wikipedia doesn't like is of course called a white supremacist.

There's a section about how yes Trump pardoned a black woman (Alice Marie Johnson), but most people he pardoned weren't black, so he's still a racist.

A year later Trump said, "I condemn all types of racism and acts of violence." Wikipedia writes, "Critics contended that the wording 'all types of racism' could be seen as a veiled defense of white nationalists." You have to squint really hard to get the perspective of these "critics" whose opinion is worth including.

18,610 words. Holy fuck wikiautists need a fucking life outside of sperging about Trump on that site.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Pretty much anything even marginally connected to Trump you have to ignore on Wikipedia. It will be unhinged. A lot of hair on fire stories in some cases ones that didn't even pan out will have a book length article. Even the most miniscule unimportant events. They're unable to ever let the dust settle on something before giving it an article sourced by Twitter posts and vox articles because the trannies that run that site have way too much time on their hands.

Trying to filter breaking news clickbait through an encyclopedia does not work.

 

[Corpun]

Pretty much anything even marginally connected to Trump you have to ignore on Wikipedia. It will be unhinged. A lot of hair on fire stories in some cases ones that didn't even pan out will have a book length article. Even the most miniscule unimportant events. They're unable to ever let the dust settle on something before giving it an article sourced by Twitter posts and vox articles because the trannies that run that site have way too much time on their hands.

Trying to filter breaking news clickbait through an encyclopedia does not work.

There used to be an article on his handshakes if you'll believe it. I think it got scrubbed a few years back though.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

There used to be an article on his handshakes if you'll believe it. I think it got scrubbed a few years back though.

Lol I heard somewhere earlier in this thread about that is that archived somewhere? I think I looked once but I didn't know the exact title.

Kind of reminds me how conspiracy theorists will claim that someone is making a masonic handshake.

 

[Corpun]

Lol I heard somewhere earlier in this thread about that is that archived somewhere? I think I looked once but I didn't know the exact title.

Kind of reminds me how conspiracy theorists will claim that someone is making a masonic handshake.

Unfortunately don't think it was. I came across it in 2018 I think and when I wanted to show it to a friend it was gone.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Donald_Trump's_handshakes
Came across this, don't know if it is retrievable or anything however.

List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2017) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2018) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2019) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2020–2021) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do we really need a year by year list of presidential trips?

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Unfortunately don't think it was. I came across it in 2018 I think and when I wanted to show it to a friend it was gone.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templateid_you_know_nominations/Donald_Trump's_handshakes
Came across this, don't know if it is retrievable or anything however.

List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2017) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2018) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2019) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2020–2021) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do we really need a year by year list of presidential trips?

Ok that 'did you know' template allowed me to find it on internet archive. The title was 'Donald Trump and handshakes'

Donald Trump and handshakes - Wikipedia

web.archive.org

Lol this autism:

U.S. President Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of handshaking. As a self-described "germophobe", he once said handshaking was "barbaric" and avoided the practice.[1] More recently, his handshakes with world leaders since his inauguration as U.S. President have been the subject of extensive commentary.

From 'Notable handshakes':

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on March 17, 2017: they did not shake hands

Then why is it on the list of notable handshakes?

It gets worse:

Analysis[edit]

CNN performed a second-by-second analysis of Donald Trump's Bastille Day handshake with Macron

Why, why? I am surprised this got deleted, given the rest of the state of Wikipedia and anything related to Trump.

 

[WhiteNight]

Ok that 'did you know' template allowed me to find it on internet archive. The title was 'Donald Trump and handshakes'

It turns out that photo op article also was on "did you know" last year:

Did you know...
... that U.S. law enforcement used chemical irritants to disperse a peaceful George Floyd protest in Washington, D.C., shortly before President Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church (pictured)?

I don't actually know what the goal of DYK is, but this looks like pure politics pushing.

Yup, this is there right now:

... that Tlalli will replace a monument to Christopher Columbus, not to "erase history", but to "deliver social justice"?

The new statue is "to honor 500 years of the resistance of indigenous women."

 

[BootlegPopeye]

It turns out that photo op article also was on "did you know" last year:

I don't actually know what the goal of DYK is, but this looks like pure politics pushing.

Yup, this is there right now:

The new statue is "to honor 500 years of the resistance of indigenous women."

The 'did you knows' have always been hilarious bullshit, either as you said politics pushing or some other irrelevant nonsense. It isn't clear what the purpose of it ever was beyond to just pump propaganda favored by the editors out to readers.

 

[Corpun]

It turns out that photo op article also was on "did you know" last year:

I don't actually know what the goal of DYK is, but this looks like pure politics pushing.

Yup, this is there right now:

The new statue is "to honor 500 years of the resistance of indigenous women."

500 years of resistance by being the wives of Spanish men?

The 'did you knows' have always been hilarious bullshit, either as you said politics pushing or some other irrelevant nonsense. It isn't clear what the purpose of it ever was beyond to just pump propaganda favored by the editors out to readers.

The DYK reminds me of google doodles, every single one is either a partial fabrication of the truth to make it seem like X person of some sort of oppressed group is a super genius or some literal who ballerina no one gives a shit about.

 

[BiggerChungus]

Pretty much anything even marginally connected to Trump you have to ignore on Wikipedia. It will be unhinged. A lot of hair on fire stories in some cases ones that didn't even pan out will have a book length article. Even the most miniscule unimportant events. They're unable to ever let the dust settle on something before giving it an article sourced by Twitter posts and vox articles because the trannies that run that site have way too much time on their hands.

Trying to filter breaking news clickbait through an encyclopedia does not work.

They always taught us in school that Wikipedia's not a good source for anything. It actually is, but only certain topics. Generally, the least political or controversial topics are gonna be fairly accurate and informative. Nobody's going to scream about how it's problematic to say a battleship from the 1890s had so many mm's of steel plating in its specs or how a species of fish migrates. The more political or contemporarily contentional issues though are without exception going to be shitpieces skewed heavily in favor of leftist views, declared neutral and accurate by Wikipedia's literally Marxist and Antifa-ass-kissing administration "because reality has a liberal bias hurr."

Basically, ignore anything and everything that leftists could be upset about or try to weaponize, and you'll get a more or less accurate breakdown of things. Them trying to push into pronoun wars over ancient figures is a sad attempt to subvert that though.

The DYK reminds me of google doodles, every single one is either a partial fabrication of the truth to make it seem like X person of some sort of oppressed group is a super genius or some literal who ballerina no one gives a shit about.

I've seen some truly retarded and obviously agenda-based DYKs before only to open the article and find that either what the DYK claims is considered something controversial or debated by one side but not universally accepted, or is completely misconstrued from the article and often not even present at all. Funny enough, some of the most frequent contributors to DYKs are admins with openly far-left views expressed on their profiles, admins that promptly delete posts or ban users who argue with them because it's "bad faith."

 

[BootlegPopeye]

They always taught us in school that Wikipedia's not a good source for anything. It actually is, but only certain topics. Generally, the least political or controversial topics are gonna be fairly accurate and informative. Nobody's going to scream about how it's problematic to say a battleship from the 1890s had so many mm's of steel plating in its specs or how a species of fish migrates. The more political or contemporarily contentional issues though are without exception going to be shitpieces skewed heavily in favor of leftist views, declared neutral and accurate by Wikipedia's literally Marxist and Antifa-ass-kissing administration "because reality has a liberal bias hurr."

The other part of it is that Wikipedia has a nerd bias. Is it a topic nerds sperg about on some level? By this I mean their hobbies, dislikes, interests, etc. Then there will be superfluous data, fancruft, and that sort of thing.

There are exceptions, the aforementioned earlier military fans who fought the deletion of Panzer aces, but sometimes it will be such an obscure topic a single hobbyist can be left in peace to write a decent article. I've seen examples with this with some Catholic theologians, or theological topics (ones that fedoras don't notice/care about, unlike say transubstantiation). The article for 'Modernism in the Catholic Church' is decent, for instance, my only complaint is that it uses scare quotes heavily.

It's really more of an accident though, if it becomes a nerd political football they'd get their grubbies in every pie to spoil whatever work people have done.

Fundamentally, the every person can edit model doesn't work. The men who wrote Encyclopedia Britannica didn't have to worry some retard would sneak in the middle of the night and scribble on their article drafts with crayons. Like the Chernobyl disaster site, you have to police articles essentially forever.

 

[Corpun]

They actually used this photo as the header for the UTR rally in 2017

Watcha' doin with that obviously folded up swastika flag Mr Fed?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

The 'did you knows' have always been hilarious bullshit, either as you said politics pushing or some other irrelevant nonsense. It isn't clear what the purpose of it ever was beyond to just pump propaganda favored by the editors out to readers.

The DYK section appears to be a four-way battle between autists seeking validation for how much effort they put into an obscure topic, people trying to make jokes (usually involving articles that share the same names), politispergs pushing propaganda, and corporate promotion (like some Gibraltar tourism campaign of the early-mid 10s).

 

[WhiteNight]

Watcha' doin with that obviously folded up swastika flag Mr Fed?

A bit off-topic, but I agree this is suspicious. There was an article by a participant who observed "the presence of at least one Nazi flag" but added,

(No-one I know recognizes the flag-bearer, nor—suspiciously—is he among the many attendees subsequently doxed by the Left’s cyber army).

I don't think most people would know where to buy one either; it reminds me of Extras:

Back on topic, I wonder how many hundreds of photos the Wiki editors had to pick through to find one with framing that portrays the rally exactly how they want.