Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?
Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it’s not like he’s the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.
All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.
Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.
Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with
Tian’anmen square is a famous historic site, not an event. If you mean the June 4th incident, Operation Yellowbird is documented on Wikipedia itself and affirms CIA involvement. Looking at prolewiki, the page on the 1989 Tian’anmen Square riots has 33 sources listed, with sources ranging from western outlets like BBC and CBS, to scholarly sources, to wikileaks. The analysis that this was a counter-revolution, and therefore the socialists were correct in putting a stop to it rather than letting it overturn socialism, is based on the information that I believe to be well-rounded and well-sourced.
Do you disagree with the sources, or with the Marxist analysis provided based on the sources? If it’s the former, what sources should be added? If it’s the latter, then that brings us to back to my claim that the bias is better to be open and honest, rather than hidden, and that the basic facts are still solid and real.
“I mean it straight up asserts something that contradicts what the authority figures in my life told me as a child, so obviously that means it’s wrong”
-You talking about Prolewiki or any Mormon talking about a biology textbook
Which it was. Do you not look into things before talking about them? You also say it “asserts” it, as if it doesn’t source the claims made.
You seem to be conflating “not reinforcing my worldview” with “being wrong and unfounded”
Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?
Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it’s not like he’s the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.
All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.
Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.
Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with
Supporting Zionist propaganda to own the “campists”.
If you see Zionists the same as Nazis this would be akin to putting a Goebbels quote in the article.
But you do not see Zionists as Nazis clearly.
It’s really telling that this got downvoted here. I’m amazed they didn’t remove it, ban it, then snark on hexbear.
Facts are CIA propaganda, I guess?
Zionist propaganda is “facts” now apparently, according to our resident “anarchists”
Facts hurt their feelings and that’s why needed to make Conservapedia but in Red flavor.
What facts hurt the feelings of socialists, and why is making an explicitly Marxist-Leninist wiki a bad thing if it’s all sourced properly?
Facts, that’s why Prolewiki isn’t sourced properly. School essays are better sourced.
Can you give an example of a poorly sourced article that is not flagged as insufficiently sourced?
I mean it straight up asserts Tianamin square was a CIA backed riot that was justly put down by the authorities.
Tian’anmen square is a famous historic site, not an event. If you mean the June 4th incident, Operation Yellowbird is documented on Wikipedia itself and affirms CIA involvement. Looking at prolewiki, the page on the 1989 Tian’anmen Square riots has 33 sources listed, with sources ranging from western outlets like BBC and CBS, to scholarly sources, to wikileaks. The analysis that this was a counter-revolution, and therefore the socialists were correct in putting a stop to it rather than letting it overturn socialism, is based on the information that I believe to be well-rounded and well-sourced.
Do you disagree with the sources, or with the Marxist analysis provided based on the sources? If it’s the former, what sources should be added? If it’s the latter, then that brings us to back to my claim that the bias is better to be open and honest, rather than hidden, and that the basic facts are still solid and real.
And that’s what it comes down to: nothing to do with it being poorly sourced, just that you disagree with it
“I mean it straight up asserts something that contradicts what the authority figures in my life told me as a child, so obviously that means it’s wrong”
-You talking about Prolewiki or any Mormon talking about a biology textbook
Which it was. Do you not look into things before talking about them? You also say it “asserts” it, as if it doesn’t source the claims made.
You seem to be conflating “not reinforcing my worldview” with “being wrong and unfounded”
They claim anything bad China does is a CIA plot, fuck sources.