Pretty sure that's wrong.
Wikipedia sure does love promoting murdering babies with brown skin.
They’re based in the US, therefore US law applies to their content. Take Wikipedia’s sister site Wikimedia Commons, for example. They explicitly state that all the content uploaded there has be out of copyright in both its country of origin and the US.
I don't agree. The myth it's describing is a real one. There is a recurrent trope that the Nazi party was flamingly gay. It wasn't.
I think much like the "clerical homosexuality" thing it's a false connection, priests don't turn out to be homos anymore than the rest of the population statistically speaking, it just sticks out more, much in the same way knob slobbering faggot nahtzees stick out more. You only notice it because of how absurd it is but in terms of numbers; not that weird really, still fucking hilarious though.
Really? I know Russell Veh was gay, and he ran some sort of nazi video distribution operation, but I don't know of any pro-gay neo-Nazi party.
That might be the most autistic way of self promotion ever.
Now you see this is the classic blunder of taking a pre existing bias and working it backwards to make sense, ironically exactly what the wikipedos love to do all the time, purely illogical, the stats as said speak for themselves; it simply isn't true not matter how much "sense" it makes. You might want it to be true but it just isn't.
I think the point is being missed that there's even an article at all, especially with this length, about the subject. It's further evidence of the editorial bias of Wikipedia. For example, a real encyclopedia would not have an article about Sonic characters with 333 cited sources.
The way it begins reads exactly like a persuasive essay as opposed to an encyclopedic article.
Any attempt at sounding informational has gone completely out the window. Ideally the whole thing would be marked for deletion but obviously the powers that be at Wikipedia take no issue with it existing.
Look up "extraterritorial jurisdiction." Also they have physical offices in the UK and assets in the UK, which the UK absolutely has jurisdiction over. They'd probably be better off just suing in the U.S. because if it's defamation, they'll effectively have to retry it in the U.S. because the UK has been such a libel tourism shithole that we actually passed a law against enforcing their judgments here.
I clicked on the link and thought it was going to be the Nut Bird, the bird with giant testicles, a pinnacle of AI art is more worthy of Wikipediazation than an Emu on GoyTok.
