Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth
Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth
Introduction
In his famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a
"ministry of truth", a division of the government that dictates to the people
which narrative to believe in. In the real world, nothing comes closer to it
than Wikipedia. It almost always occupies the leading spot in search engine
results and is used as the source of information by voice assistants. To the
average eye, this seems innocent and not in need of questioning. "Everyone uses
Wikipedia and it is freely editable, so it must be reliable", right?
But no, as will be shown later, that doesn't necessarily mean so. Yet, the
impression of reliability that Wikipedia gives would let a person (or a small
group of people) who managed to gain control over it, wield great power to shape
public opinion. And that is exactly what has happened. Under the hood,
Wikipedia is severely manipulated on any topic where controversy and lots of
money and power are involved. You will only get the whitewashed point of view
approved by the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical industry, the World Health
Organization, and associated powerful organizations. Anything that diverges from
their point of view is promptly purged or labelled as "fringe", "alternative",
and variations thereof.
Given that Wikipedia only allows mainstream sources, Wikipedia is in effect an
extension of the elite-owned mainstream corporations that serve to protect those
in power and prevent us from ever questioning the nonsense that they spout all
day, under the pretense of an "openly editable encyclopedia".
Wikipedia describes itself as solid as a rock against polarization,
disinformation, misinformation in its omnipresent donation banners (arch
ive)
(local). In reality, it is
the rulers' good little parrot that is able to squeak nothing but the ruling
opinion.
It strongly appears that Wikipedia was designed with the goal of being
infiltrated - or at least an opening was purposely left for it. And infiltrated
it was. Let's first explore how Wikipedia's supposed principles are actually
covers for its job of protecting mainstream narratives. Then, we will give
examples. And finally,
we will track the various steps of infiltration over the
years. So let's begin:
The problems with Wikipedia's fundamentals
Neutrality
Wikipedia promises us
neutrality (archive)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point
of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as
far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have
been published by reliable sources on a topic.
What does neutral mean for them, though?
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all
significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in
proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable
sources.
not saying or doing anything that would encourage or help any of the groups
involved in an argument or war
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others
And definition 2:
not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy
Let's throw in a third dictionary
[(archive)ttps://web.archive.org/web/20230408164612/https://www.thefreediction
ary.com/Neutral]
(MozArchive), because their
definition is so good:
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or
contest
Can we get anymore clear than the above? We now have enough to understand what
neutrality is all about in the real world. When two parties are fighting
(whether it's a war or an argument), you don't take sides. Can you take that
impression out of the Wiki definition? Wiki obviously takes the side of the
reliable source; it is a total 1984-style redefinition. Some synonyms for
neutral are unbiased, impartial and non-aligned, which (especially the last one)
should make it even more clear that the reliability of one of the sides has no
bearing whatsoever on whether supporting it becomes neutral. Every dictionary is
in agreement, that all sides of a conflict are equal as far as neutrality is
concerned.
But not Wikipedia. According to them, neutrality comes down to what the reliable
sources have to say. So let's let Wikipedia itself explain what those even are:
Reliable sources
I've always understood the word reliable to mean generally solid or something
like that. But a reader reminded me that another possible meaning is someone you
can count on to do what you want them to. E.g a reliable dealer for drugs in a
country that disallows them, etc. A dictionary like
(MozArchive) confirms this
with the first definition being Someone or something that is reliable can be
trusted or believed because he, she, or it works or behaves well in the way you
expect. Though the difference might be subtle, it exists; my understanding was
more about objectivity (or the properties of something) and Wiki's is about
subjectivity (following their wishes). When I realized this, it put the
Wikipedia situation into an entirely different light for me. Like those pictures
that you can look at in two ways, and you finally find the second one and the
flower becomes the old woman. By choosing the word reliable, Wikipedia is
telling us exactly what it's doing. It is picking the sources that will
confirm the Ministry's biases. They could have used the words quality or
accurate or professional or anything else that's concerned with properties other
than blind obedience. But they didn't. Because the Ministry wants exclusively
sources that it can rely on to say what it wants them to. Even though on their
page explaining reliable
sources (archive)
(MozArchive) they pay lip
service to qualities like a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy or
error-correction, when you examine their list of reliable
sources (archive)
(MozArchive), it is obvious
those only provide a cover for allegiance to the Ministry.
On that list, spreading conspiracy theories (which really means "crimes done by
the people at the top") is enough to get sources (such as NaturalNews or
ZeroHedge) banned. Another reason is (alleged) propaganda from Russia or China
(however, USA's from their myriad of sources that spread it, is completely
acceptable). The funniest case is that of Newsmax, with the rationale for its
dismissal being: Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders
propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false
information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as
COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and
anti-vaccination propaganda. Haha. All the favorite Ministry boogeymen are here.
And look at the utter contempt with which they are stated. Can it get any
clearer that whether a source is accepted by Wiki has nothing to do with a
reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or error-correction - but only which
specific views it holds?
Another piece of evidence to show it's all about shilling certain positions can
be found by seeing what kinds of sources get unquestioningly accepted, and why.
Snopes, PolitiFact and Reuters have spread a lot of nonsense during the
"pandemic", which I have shown a few times in my Corona
report. Funnily, there is not a
lot of "fact-checking" in the "fact-checker's" offices. But, Wikipedia isn't
phased, because those sources were commited to supporting the mainstream Corona
narrative at all costs (as in, they were reliable for doing so). Oh, and
additional points are given because they're endorsed by some shady International
Fact-Checking Network - which actually receives
funding
(MozArchive) from the...wait
for it... Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation :D - and is even owned by the
same entity as PolitiFact, one of the bullshitting sources. No conflicts of
interest there, at all :D. It's the blind leading the blind on Wiki - or maybe
the same criminals being the judges, jurors and executioners.
And so, since Wikipedia only accepts sources that state its prefered views, and
has redefined neutrality to mean "extreme favoring of the views stated by those
sources" - it can then pretend to be neutral while in reality executing the
shill campaign for the rulers. How despicably fraudulent. And yet that's still
not enough defense against unwanted views; sometimes a source that's on the
reliable list will say something it shouldn't. It will of course end up on the
unreliable / banned list during the next
review (archive)
(MozArchive); but in the
meantime, the Ministry needs to keep the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience
from slipping through the cracks. They achieve this through the Due weight
principle:
Due weight
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not
give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as
more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of
tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see
also" to an article about those specific views.
Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately
reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not
give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular
view.
So the beliefs the Ministry likes take the center stage, and daring to put any
others on equal footing is really, really bad. By its own admission Wikipedia is
just a shill outlet for its chosen theories. But the reality is even worse
than the stated principle - all unwanted views on Wikipedia are dumped into
separate articles (which then shit on them). So there isn't even a distinction
between significant and tiny minorities - both receive the same treatment. The
one where they get ignored in the main article and sent to the wolves' den for
the inevitable ripping. So, any view that the Ministry doesn't like is not given
due weight - as the Ministry says - but no weight at all, or even negative
weight. The stuff about relative levels of support is just a bluff, since any
view the Ministry dislikes receives zero support in its articles (I will show
all this with several examples later). The Ministry's utter hate against
challenging the ortodoxy is easily seen in the following quote:
Orthodoxy worship
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any
topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or
extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted
mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many
such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that
the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that
the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories,
pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted
theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic
scholarship.
Suddenly any pretense of neutrality poofs into the ether when it concerns
conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. Do they even have statistics on whether
their hated views are minority? If not, then there is no basis for rejecting
their inclusion from main articles about a topic. Remember that Wikipedia
doesn't claim to reject minority views completely - but represent them
proportionally according to their prevalence. In that case, why isn't the view
that the Moon landing was faked included as a section of the Moon
landing (archive)
(MozArchive) article? After
[(archive)ttps://web.archive.org/web/20220507094815/https://yougov.co.uk/topic
s/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/25/which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-d
o-britons] (MozArchive). If it
is about the opinions of scientists only, then well, do they even have the
statistics for those? We know 3500+ architects and engineers question the
official 9 / 11 story, and yet that is not enough to give the alternative view a
section in the Wikipedia hit piece (archive)
(MozArchive). If the
Ministry's definition of significance isn't based on the numbers, then on what?
Aside from the Ministry simply not liking certain views, of course. None of
this is ever explained in any Ministry page, so the most obvious assumption is
that it is - indeed - about the Ministry's preferences.
The only way out of this conundrum is to settle on the prevalence of a view in
reliable sources, but the reliable sources are handpicked in terms of whether
they have the views prefered by the Ministry itself - so it's just a
self-referencing claim ("I am the greatest person in the world, because I have
eliminated everyone but myself from the competition"). Even if we let them
define the terms of the competition, they still don't have statistics for which
views are actually significant in their chosen reliable sources (nor what level
of prevalence is required), so it all ends up being based on the Ministry's
imagination. Literally - set the rules of the competition, then write down the
scores themselves, and finally declare yourself the winner. All hail, the
Ministry of Truth! Anyway, let's check out some other rules Wikipedia is
supposed to follow (which really are just extensions of NPOV that they have
already shown to not care about):
Other illusions
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A
neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a
consistently impartial tone
And:
There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain
expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For
example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could
imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may
make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state
the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim
said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions,
disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view
(unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).
The following ones are particularly funny, because almost every article
Wikipedia has on anything even mildly controversial violates them:
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information
about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their
subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or
where justified, described as widespread views, etc.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable
sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions
as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain.
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or
is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable
source that directly supports[2] the material
Remember this one when you examine the upcoming examples.
Summary
Wikipedia dismisses sources that it arbitrarily decides are not reliable solely
because they have views that go against the Ministry, instead of the quality of
research. Then, even the sources that remain are only allowed to cover topics
the Ministry likes, in ways the Ministry likes, lest they eventually end up on
the unreliable list. After all this, Wikipedia pretends to have a bunch of rules
that allegedly ensure the neutrality of its articles, but in reality does not
care about any of them at all. Let's move on to the examples which show that:
Examples of Wikipedia's unreliability
Parapsychology
Parapsychology is the study of alleged psychic phenomena (extrasensory
perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis (also
called telekinesis), and psychometry) and other paranormal claims, for
example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity,
apparitional experiences, etc.[1] Criticized as being a pseudoscience, the
majority of mainstream scientists reject it. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Right in the first paragraph we have a loaded word (alleged), another loaded
word (claims; hey, remember that thing about how the word claim [...] could
imply a lack of credibility, and should be avoided?), and an insult
(pseudoscience). The claim that the majority of mainstream scientists reject it
has 8 (!) references, but none of them provide any statistics supporting it,
so it is just a bluff (and violates All quotations, and any material whose
verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material).
It is of course impossible for the editors to not have noticed that their main
claim is completely unsupported - therefore the whole article has been written
as a hit piece from the start. Either way, if they cannot prove that mainstream
science actually rejects parapsychology, then there is no basis for making
skepticism the prominent view according to Wikipedia's own principles. It is
also funny how they cite Richard Wiseman, when the same Wiseman has admitted (archive)
(MozArchive) that psychic
ability is proven. Of course, that quote didn't find its way into the Wiki
hit piece. Also look at the huge right sidebar where parapsychology is lumped in
with things like fringe science, urban legend or fallacy. This article doesn't
even sniff the neutral label.
Plasma cosmology
Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject
it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as
well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma
cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.
This claim is completely unsourced. Literally editor's opinion, which Wikipedia
supposedly disallows.
The Electric Universe refers to a related set of ideas that are also not
supported by observations
The source for this claim is a rant about pseudoscience (archi
ve)
(MozArchive) from the fucking
Michael Shermer. Is this what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? Shermer is
not a physicist, nor any kind of scientist - just a random who has made a
career out of denying everything non-mainstream. And yet, this is the guy
Wikipedia chose to debunk a claim. What a joke. Yet another Ministry piece that
is utterly non-neutral.
Alternative medicine
Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing
effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability,
repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials.
No reference given for this editor's opinion.
Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical
science and instead rely on pseudoscience.
Neither for this one. In fact, there isn't a single reference given for any of
the bullshit said in the entire first paragraph. Or the second. Or the third. Or
the fourth. I'm serious - go check it for yourself. The Ministry threw at you a
screed taken entirely out of its ass. Then, on the right sidebar, they call alt
med the alternative to reality-based medical treatments of conventional
medicine. Totally neutral, totally not loaded, totally not just an opinion of a
shill for the medical industry. The principle of Wikipedia describes disputes.
Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes
requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone just looks
funny reading this piece, in which every sentence violates it.
I don't think there's a need to go through all the claims this trashy article
makes. I mean, there are thousands of alternative therapies and they include
foods, exercise,
herbs, etc. that have been
(MozArchive) and are known
to work. There is no need for the Ministry's approval to realize this. But they
dismiss it all in principle, because you are supposed to act only according to
the information coming from the Ministry.
COVID-19 vaccines
Serious adverse events associated COVID‑19 vaccines are generally rare but
of high interest to the public.[15] The official databases of reported
adverse events include the World Health Organization's VigiBase, the United
States Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the United
Kingdom's Yellow Card Scheme. Increased public awareness of these reporting
systems and the extra reporting requirements under US FDA Emergency Use
Authorization rules have resulted in an increased volume of reported adverse
events.
The rarity of side effects is emphasized all over the article, but they never
tell you about the 12 times
increase of their prevalence
at VAERS. What they do try to do is dismissing the relevance of the
reporting system (with a link to a "fact-checking" site), without ever telling
you the actual numbers. Because if they told you the numbers, you would have
realized that their explanations don't work. They also say that up to 20% of
people report a disruptive level of side effects after the second dose of an
mRNA vaccine, but actually half of vaccine takers get a systemic reaction
which Wikipedia completely ignores. The fact that they dismiss both VAERS and
V-Safe (remember, these are government sources) shows that they are not only not
neutral, but nothing more than shills for the vaccines.
September 11 attacks
One of the worst cases on Wikipedia, for sure - pretty much perfectly showcasing
how the Ministry doesn't give a shit about any of the noble principles they
advertise.
The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[c] were four coordinated
suicide terrorist attacks carried out by the militant Islamic extremist
network al-Qaeda
Sounds like a violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating
seriously contested assertions as facts. But of course, anything is allowed if
the alternative is to give space to the dreaded conspiracy theories:
9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of
support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.
Ha-ha. What about the Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth (archive)
(MozArchive)? Who are not
mentioned even once in this whole excuse of an "encyclopedic" article. If
Wikipedia was even close to neutral, there would be a whole "Criticism" section
in the article, that would honestly present the views of the AE911 folks. I
mean, this is clearly a significant view by any sane definition of significant
(they have over 3500 architects and engineers who question the official story;
August 2022 stats). But of course - since the point of the Ministry is
propaganda - it can't be mentioned. The only way you'd know that alternative
views even exist is if you clicked the 9 / 11 conspiracy
theories (archiv
e)
(MozArchive) page (one single
link in the middle of the article; can easily be missed) - where they are
promptly shat on.
One of the arbiters on the 9 / 11 arbitration
page (archive)
(MozArchive) said this:
This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have
participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more
dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the
barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can
clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are
forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have
summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider
anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the
article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with
scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted
above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly
"morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to
"9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their
beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is
NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such
is obvious bad faith.
Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of
arbitration would be in this case.
Perhaps you were thinking that "Since Wikipedia is open, we can just fix the bad
articles!"; well, this should bury that idea. They didn't even let people fix
the fucking name, much less the contents of their propaganda pieces.
Moon landing
The United States' Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the
Moon, on 20 July 1969.[4] There were six crewed U.S. landings between 1969
and 1972, and numerous uncrewed landings, with no soft landings happening
between 22 August 1976 and 14 December 2013.
Same old, same old. Opinions as facts, no criticism, dismissal of alternatives
with the conspiracy theory label. The thing that makes this one unique is that
the moon landing is so easy to disprove. Like, a single Bart Sibrel video - for
example this
one (CF) or
this one can do it in less than an
hour. And then nothing remains of all the fluff they've included in this
Ministry propaganda piece. Look, people - the chance that the moon landing was
real is zero. Absolute zero. And there is no way the Wiki editors don't know
they're bullshitting you, proving Wiki is evil to the core.
About Bart Sibrel, the Ministry shits on him
too (archive)
(MozArchive), of course:
Bart Winfield Sibrel (born 1964/1965)[1][2] is an American conspiracy
theorist who has written, produced, and directed works in support of the
false belief that the Apollo Moon landings between 1969 and 1972 were staged
by NASA under the control of the CIA
The standard conspiracy theorist smear and a false belief dismissal (isn't this
just a direct violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts. [...] However,
these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.?) right in the first
sentence of a neutral encyclopedia. Totally shameless.
Coconut oil
Due to its high levels of saturated fat, numerous health authorities
recommend limiting its consumption as a food.
Took them until just the third sentence to throw this predictable nonsense at
the readers. And then there's this:
Marketing of coconut oil has created the inaccurate belief that it is a
"healthy food".
Inaccurate belief = another direct violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts.
[...] However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
This is so tiring. Anyway, this sorry piece of medical industry propaganda that
pretends to be an encyclopedic article has a section titled Health concerns -
but nothing whatsover about the shitloads of health
benefits (a
rchive)
(MozArchive) that coconut oil
has been shown to have in scientific studies. From that section we can fish out
this gem:
Although lauric acid consumption may create a more favorable total blood
cholesterol profile, this does not exclude the possibility that persistent
consumption of coconut oil may actually increase the risk of cardiovascular
diseases through other mechanisms
"Although our primary theory has been convincingly refuted, we don't want people
to get healthy so we still pretend coconut oil is somehow harmful, with zero
evidence". By the way, whenever coconut oil is compared to vegetable oils in
terms of cholesterol, consider this quote from Ray Peat:
The cholesterol-lowering fiasco for a long time centered on the ability of
unsaturated oils to slightly lower serum cholesterol. For years, the
mechanism of that action wasn't known, which should have suggested caution.
Now, it seems that the effect is just one more toxic action, in which the
liver defensively retains its cholesterol, rather than releasing it into the
blood.
Hey, they even have a Clinical research section! Is this where we finally find a
mention of the numerous health benefits? Or maybe some information about the
(MozArchive) that eat
extreme amounts of coconut with zero negative effect (Vascular disease is
uncommon in both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat
intake having a harmful effect in these populations.)? No, it's just more
whining about cholesterol. Because this is the only point the Ministry could
have latched on to to make coconut oil seem negative at all costs. But to do
that, they had to ignore everything else, which can only be called neutral in
clown world.
Hunza people
An author who had significant and sustained contact with Burusho people,
John Clark, reported that they were overall unhealthy.[16]
creationist site that has hundreds of "alternative" theories in it. This is
exactly the kind of a source which the Ministry would have dismissed
immediately... if it didn't help them "prove" what they wanted to. Does it not
seem like Wikipedia does everything to make you not be healthy - by denying
that healthy populations exist? The stuff about reliable sources evaporates when
Wikipedia really needs to dismiss something. Either way, this account totally
contradicts McCarrison's from the 1920s, described in the book The Wheel of
Health:
My own experience provides an example of a race unsurpassed in perfection of
physique and in freedom from disease in general.
During the period of my association with these people, I never saw a case of
asthenic dyspesia, of gastric or duodenal ulcer, of appendicitis, of mucous
colitis, of cancer...Among these people the abdomen oversensitive to nerve
impressions, to fatigue, anxiety or cold was unknown.
This source is - of course - completely ignored by the Ministry.
White genocide
Definitely the most egregious example of Wikipedia's non-neutrality (this
probably means the rulers want to keep this buried the most; I will let you
guess the reason).
The white genocide, white extinction,[1] or white replacement conspiracy
theory,[2][3][4] is a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] conspiracy theory which
states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews
White genocide is a political myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience,
pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred
I'm being blinded by all this neutrality.
White people are not dying out or facing extermination.[26][27][28][21]
Do not be fooled by the four references, because none of them discuss the
(one of the sources considered reliable by Wikipedia) - on the other hand -
does. And guess what:
The proportion of whites in the U.S. population started to decline in 1950.
It fell to gradually over the years, eventually reaching just over 60% in
2018 – the lowest percentage ever recorded.
The numbers support the theory. The same is done by the Washington Post (archive)
(MozArchive), another
reliable source:
The most touted set of projections adopts the most exclusive definition,
restricting the white population to those who self-identify as white and
also no other race or ethnicity. Under this definition, whites are indeed in
numerical decline.
Mixed-race parentage is growing more common, and a rapidly growing number of
people choose more than one racial or ethnic category to describe
themselves on the census.
Though the article calls it a myth, the actual quotes inside it support the
white genocide theory. The same trend is also seen in the UK
The white British proportion is officially below 50 per cent in Leicester,
Luton and Slough.
London’s 3.7 million white Britons were already a minority – 44.9 per cent
of the population – and researchers said the same could be true in
Birmingham within seven years.
And yet, none of those sources can be found anywhere in the 323 ones cited by
Wikipedia - all while the article is filled with ones whining about hate,
neo-nazism, white supremacy, white nationalism, conspiracy theories and Donald
Trump. Now why not at least mention the numbers once in such a long article
about a topic for which the numbers should form the base? But of course, they
can't teach their readers why those dirty neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists, and
white supremacists believe in the theory in the first place, since enlightenment
is not on the Ministry's menu. This article is so valuable, because it violates
pretty much every single rule Wikipedia pretends to follow - even reliable
sources are completely ignored here.
Vitamin D
At this point I'm used to enduring the Wiki talking shit about all kinds of
conspiracy theories or alternative science. In those cases, even if you buy the
Ministry's bullshit - at worst you will end up as a normie; confused,
manipulated and controlled by dark forces - but without real physical harm done.
What I will not tolerate is them shamelessly toying with people's lives by
lying about a nutrient that is extremely safe and the lack of which affects
pretty much every disease process in the body. If there is ever a time where
words can kill, it is right here. Hold on to your seats, because the biggest
conspiracy of all time is about to be exposed:
Wikipedia first tries to reel you in by mentioning some generic positive effects
of vitamin D, such as the maintenance of calcium and phosphorus levels in the
blood, bone remodeling through its role as a potent stimulator of bone
resorption and vitamin D also affects the immune system and VDRs are expressed
in several white blood cells. The ones everyone knows and accepts and they
couldn't really argue against. That is the bait, and once you're on the hook -
they can begin to devour their catch.
The first fraud is in the way they define vitamin D deficiency and
insufficiency. Their definitions are based on the USA government's definitions
So, they define deficient as the level which fails to prevent rickets, and
insufficient as that which fails to support overall health in healthy
individuals. Amazing. Now we'll do a thought exercise. Ask yourself how you
would define a deficiency in a nutrient. My answer is: let's say that the human
body has a need for some nutrient to do some things. If the nutrient is lacking
to do "job X" then some bad effect - that can be detected - happens
(analogically, if a city lacks a fire department - or enough firemen - when a
fire happens, stuff just burns and this can be detected). And so, a sufficient
(or not deficient) amount of a nutrient is that which prevents all the bad
effects due to lack of its availability (or, a sufficient amount of firemen is
the one that can reach all the fires that happen and douse them in the required
time). Do you follow me here? Deficiency - to me - ends when additional doses of
the nutrient do not provide anymore good effects and / or prevent bad ones.
Sufficiency is when you have enough to fulfill all the jobs the relevant
nutrient is supposed to do. Lack of deficiency = sufficiency (the term
insufficiency, that they try so hard to shove in there, seems like another fraud
to me. Just a distraction to make it seem that a small or moderate deficiency
is fine in the minds of people. The more honest terminology would be deficient
for what they call insufficient and extremely deficient for what they call
deficient). For another example, there exists some amount of protein with which
you ensure the maximum possible amount of muscle growth as a weighlifter. Less
than that would be deficient assuming that muscle growth is one of the effects
you're considering. Hell, let's give one more example - the sufficient amount of
clothing is the one that fully protects you from outside temperature, e.g a
jacket in winter. Anything that doesn't and makes you feel cold (e.g only a
sweater in winter) is deficient. I want to hammer on this point, because it is
fundamental to show how the government (and Wiki by extension) lies to you. So I
hope this was clear enough. Now look at this chart with all of this in mind:
Notice the trick yet? They arbitrarily picked out a single (worst) effect of
a lack of vitamin D to focus on (rickets) and are claiming that - if that
effect is prevented - you're not anymore deficient in vitamin D. Yet in this
case they failed even according to their own standards, because you need 18ng /
ml - and not 12 - to fully prevent rickets. Anyway - as the chart shows -
vitamin D prevents many diseases in much higher amounts than are recommended.
But Wiki and the gov say fuck all those, go suffer, you plebeian and tell
you that you are sufficient with only the rickets prevention. This is like
deciding that you're sufficient in protein if you're not sarcopenic. Screw all
the other effects of additional protein on hormones or anything else, those are
irrelevant. Or it's like deciding that you're sufficient in clothing if you're
not so hypothermic that you die. And so, if you wear just enough to prevent
death in winter (let's say jeans and a shirt), that's sufficient even if you're
shivering. This is how they make it seem like you're having enough of
something, even if in reality more would heavily improve your situation. Another
easy to understand example would be defining poverty. Screw electricity,
clothes or gas - you're sufficient in money if you can afford food, according to
Wiki's and the gov's reasoning. Anyway, the chart shows that 54ng / ml is the
amount that achieves all possible good effects (there could be some more not
shown in this chart, and so the real needed amount might be even higher, but
let's keep this simple for now) of vitamin D, and so is the actually sufficient
amount according to a sane, non-arbitrary definition. Anyway, Wiki takes their
shitty definition and runs with it to claim that:
An estimated one billion adults worldwide are either vitamin D insufficient
or deficient
Yet the reality is that... are you ready for this? EVERYONE is deficient! I
know my audience will not simply buy this truly outrageous claim, so I have of
course prepared an extremely strong
proof
Look at the 95th Percentile column. This means that 95% of people have less
vitamin D in their blood than what's listed. The conversion from nmol/L
(European unit) to ng/ml (American unit) is 2.5. And so - if you look at e.g the
LASA (Netherlands) study, 95% of people living there have less than 103.9
nmol/L (41.56 ng/ml) of vitamin D in their blood. Look back at the chart above
and see, that many diseases are still not prevented at that level! And
that's the highest result out of all the studies! Hey, I have no idea what even
is the difference between Original and VDSP-Calibrated but it doesn't change
anything. Neither one of those allows countries to reach the levels required to
maximally prevent kidney or ovarian cancers, or fractures. When I told you
everyone was deficient, I meant it. And that's still the best faring
country, remember! Most of them are at the level of like 80 nmol/L (32 ng/ml) or
even less, which is really abysmal - failing to even maximally prevent heart
attacks.
But hey - for thoroughness sake - let's clarify that maybe it's not
literally everyone in the world that's deficient, since I just know some
nitpicker will harp on this point. Some wild people in Africa that haven't yet
been shoved into the city lifestyle, actually come close to the optimal level,
but even they don't reach it. I think the only ones actually not deficient
are those that either take supplements in high enough dosages (e.g 10K per day
for at least most of the year) or sunbathe naked during the entire summer, or
maybe work construction shirtless for many hours per day. But this is a fraction
of a fraction of all people, and not at all relevant to the many hikikomoris of
today (an office worker is effectively a hikikomori at least when Vit D intake
is concerned). And still, I suspect that even those enjoying lots of sun
exposure during the vitamin D months might still be deficient during winter in
Europe, since the amount they have stored in their bodyfat will be falling every
day then, and not being replenished. So supplements will still be essential
unless you're a white man in Africa (the cheat code).
So, Wiki lies about the amount of deficient people. Then they also downplay the
effects of the lack of vitamin D:
Severe vitamin D deficiency in children, a rare disease in the developed
world, causes a softening and weakening of growing bones, and a condition
called rickets.
Deficiency results in impaired bone mineralization and bone damage which
leads to bone-softening diseases,[29] including rickets in children and
osteomalacia in adults.
They can do that only because they've defined all other effects out of
existence! See the previous paragraphs for a refresher. Hey, this isn't the
first time they've played that game. They - actually - do that every time they
dismiss a source because it's not on their list of reliable ones. But here it is
much more blatant. Then - when they finally decide to focus on something other
than bones - they spit nonsense such as:
Vitamin D3 supplementation has been tentatively found to lead to a reduced
risk of death in the elderly,[11][56] but the effect has not been deemed
pronounced, or certain enough, to make taking supplements recommendable.[13]
Vitamin D supplements do not alter the outcomes for myocardial infarction,
stroke or cerebrovascular disease, cancer, bone fractures or knee
osteoarthritis.[13][57]
Vitamin D supplementation is not associated with a reduced risk of stroke,
cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or ischemic heart
disease.[13][79][80]
[13] is their favorite source, it seems. I decided to take a look at
it
Check this:
Do you see anything funny? The dosages used in those studies were pathetic.
800 IU? 400?! What the fuck is that? That's - of course - not going to
prevent or treat any disease. They didn't even manage to raise the levels of
vitamin D in the bloods of participants to levels sufficient according to the
above chart (54 ng/ml or 135 nmol/L as refreshers). See how the one using 9000
IU actually got results in terms of the blood levels, at least? So why not
gather the studies where actually relevant dosages were used? In most of the
studies Wiki's meta-analysis included, people started with a vitamin D level of
a corpse (55 nmol/L = 22 ng/ml, or even less), and got it raised only a little
(e.g Meyer 2002, level raise of 18.8 ng/ml to 25.6, whereas the amount needed to
prevent fractures minimally is...38!! Of course it didn't work!) with the puny
dosages used. No wonder there weren't results in terms of disease incidence. Yet
Wikipedia uses this shitty meta-analysis to dismiss vitamin D treatment
altogether. Do not - also - get tricked by the massive per year amounts used,
because when calculated - the per day dosage ends up being just as puny (500 000
per year = 1369 per day, and failed to raise blood levels AT ALL!). Look at the
will understand the fraud easily. They can be 10 or even more times higher than
the Wiki ones (e.g many using 50000 weekly, which is over 7K per day). And so,
the shiny statistical graphs shown in Wiki's meta-analysis later mean nothing
whatsoever, since they're based on studies with mouse dosages. The entire source
[13] is a hit piece, and not actually meant to investigate anything. But hey,
maybe Wiki has simply made a mistake with that one source. Mistakes happen! No
one is perfect. So let's investigate some others, starting with [source
[79]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6584896/)
which supposedly proves that vitamin D supplementation is not associated with a
reduced risk of stroke, cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or
ischemic heart disease. In this meta-analysis, out of 21 included studies:
11 studies used 1000 or less IU per day
4 studies used more than 1000, but no more than 2000
Only 3 studies used 3000+, but no more than 4000
Three studies used things that are not vitamin D3
The increases in blood vitamin D levels were not measured. But from [13] we
know that such dosages are not enough to even come close to the optimal levels
(e.g 1369 failed to raise it AT ALL!). And the starting levels were low in all
studies where such data was available - except Sanders (where the participants
started with already optimal levels, pretty much - meaning additional vitamin D
would not have done anything, anyway). So, it's almost certain that the
treatments simply didn't raise the blood vitamin D levels high enough to prevent
cardiac events (in [13] the only dosage which accomplished that was the 9000 IU
per day; nothing close to that was used here). Yet another shoddy hit piece
cited by Wiki. Hey, I also looked at [source
[80]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240168)
(local), and
it suffers from the same issues as [79] (corpse initial levels and low treatment
doses). No need to repeat the analysis, I guess. Anyway, let's read further...
The entire Excess section is a sham. How dare you even have it when everyone is
deficient and most people terminally so? Anyway, sometimes Wikipedia does admit
a part of the truth there, but only to later bury it with lies, leaving the
reader confused. Their first nonsense claim is:
The threshold for vitamin D toxicity has not been established; however,
according to some research, the tolerable upper intake level (UL) is 4,000
IU/day for ages 9–71[157]
By the way, [[157]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046611/)
cites no research supporting this claim - so this is a violation of All
quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is
likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source
that directly supports[2] the material. Fortunately, Wikipedia comes to the
rescue and beautifully refutes it in the same sentence:
while other research concludes that, in healthy adults, sustained intake of
more than 50,000 IU/day (1250 μg) can produce overt toxicity after several
months and can increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to 150 ng/mL and
greater.[24][158]
Amazing. Obviously, if 50000 over many months is needed to produce overt
toxicity, then 4000 (over 10 times less) must be perfectly safe. They also post
this crucial tidbit later, which makes their entire section irrelevant:
Published cases of toxicity involving hypercalcemia in which the vitamin D
dose and the 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels are known all involve an intake of
≥40,000 IU (1,000 μg) per day.
But after that, they come back to fearmongering about much lesser amounts:
Over 18% of the population exceeds the NIH daily recommended allowance (RDA)
of 600–800 IU,[2] by taking over 1000 IU, which suggests intentional
supplement intake.
Over 3% of the population exceeds the NIH daily tolerable upper intake level
(UL) of 4000 IU,[2] above which level the risk of toxic effects
increases.[167][166]
Fuck off! We have already established that there is no toxicity for any dosage
under 40 fucking thousand, so why keep pretending that these tiny amounts are
suddenly dangerous?! [[167]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56058/) (ar
chive) (MozArchive),
by the way, provides no support for 4000 IU being harmful in any way:
In this case, an intake value of 10,000 IU/day reflects a NOAEL. This NOAEL
is initially adjusted for uncertainty to establish a UL of 4,000 IU/day, as
described below..
NOAEL = The highest intake (or experimental dose) of a nutrient at which no
adverse effect has been observed. Meaning, they admit that 10000 isn't toxic.
They then literally use the "muh uncertainty" excuse to set the maximum
recommended Vit D intake at 4000 IU per day. But that has nothing whatsoever to
do with proven toxicity (which they admit only starts at 10000+; which is also
wrong but more acceptable). And yet, Wikipedia tries to use this source to
support the claim that 4000 IU is toxic - violating All quotations [...]
again. They've also dreamed up this absolute insanity:
Vitamin D overdose causes hypercalcemia, which is a strong indication of
vitamin D toxicity – this can be noted with an increase in urination and
thirst. If hypercalcemia is not treated, it results in excess deposits of
calcium in soft tissues and organs such as the kidneys, liver, and heart,
resulting in pain and organ damage.[24][29][168]
Other symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include intellectual disability in
young children, abnormal bone growth and formation, diarrhea, irritability,
weight loss, and severe depression.[24][168]
Nowhere in [[24]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17634462/)
(local) is there a single word
about any of those alleged horrible effects (hey, another violation of All
quotations [...]). Somehow in their craftiness, Wiki has made [24] seem like
an anti-Vit D paper, when it's anything but. In fact, the entire paper is about
preventing effects of vitamin D deficiency such as the depression which
Wiki claims is caused by... vitamin D excess! Quite the reversal of reality that
is standard for the Ministry. I wonder if it's some kind of a game, trying to
find the most pro-Vit D paper and seeing how they can make it appear to support
their insane anti-health agenda. These quotes from [24] will certainly never
find their way inside the Wikipedia hit piece:
For 10,366 children in Finland who were given 2000 IU of vitamin D3 per day
during their first year of life and were followed for 31 years, the risk of
type 1 diabetes was reduced by approximately 80% (relative risk, 0.22; 95%
CI, 0.05 to 0.89)
In a study of patients with hypertension who were exposed to ultraviolet B
radiation three times a week for 3 months, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels
increased by approximately 180%, and blood pressure became normal (both
systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduced by 6 mm Hg). vitamin D
deficiency is associated with congestive heart failure
Men and women with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level above 35 ng per milliliter
(87 nmol per liter) had a 176-ml increase in the forced expiratory volume in
1 second. Children of women living in an inner city who had vitamin D
deficiency during pregnancy are at increased risk for wheezing illnesses
Another source cited to support their toxicity bullshit is [[158]](https://www.m
erckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional-disorders/vitamin-deficiency%2C-depende
ncy%2C-and-toxicity/vitamin-d-toxicity) (archive), which is quoted
as such:
The main symptoms of vitamin D overdose are hypercalcemia including
anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. These may be followed by polyuria,
polydipsia, weakness, insomnia, nervousness, pruritus and ultimately kidney
failure. Furthermore, proteinuria, urinary casts, azotemia, and metastatic
calcification (especially in the kidneys) may develop.[158]
The source itself just repeats the claim, without proving any of those scary
side effects. Pathetic. The other sources ([29] and [168]) for the alleged
destruction caused by vitamin D are 600+ page books, which I'm sorry, but I'm
not going to read (and I doubt the Wiki editors have, either). At least bring
the actual quotations that you think prove your claims. Organ (or any) damage
from vitamin D is obviously just pure imagination on the Ministry's part. And it
has a very clear goal - to get you to avoid the one crucial nutrient your body
craves, so that you get sick and dependent on the medical industry, which will
only "manage" your disease and never cure, and get rich off you and millions of
similar people. To really hammer the point that vitamin D toxicity is a
complete illusion, check
In fact, in East Germany between the 1940's and 1960's, children would
ROUTINELY get 6 doses of 600,000 IU's of vitamin D between birth and 18
months old.
A study called Intermittent High Dose Vitamin D During Infancy questioning
this practice's safety noted that, while many of the children developed
transient high levels of blood calcium levels, "...all the infants appeared
healthy and repeated inquiries... have failed to identify clinical vitamin d
toxicity as a result of the prophylactic program...".
Boom. Myth sent into space. I'm going to swallow some 10K units of Vit D to
celebrate :D. The reality is, you can barely find any supplement out there that
is safer than vitamin D; I'd wager that one doesn't exist. All the fearmongers
can come up with as a possible danger is hypercalcemia, and then try to connect
that to actual side effects by pure imagination. Yet even that
fails (archive)
Each ampule contained 600,000 IU of vitamin D; therefore, the boy received a
total of 2,400,000 IU over 4 days. The patient's hypercalcemia persisted
for 14 days and was complicated by persistent hypertension. No renal,
cardiac, or neurologic complications were noted.
Over two million fucking IUs! For a 2 year old! Resulting in 470 ng/ml blood
levels! 20 times more than what a regular person has! And yet it did not cause
any organ damage at all! Are you still scared of the puny 4K? Are you still
trusting the Ministry? To recap, they lied about what being deficient in vitamin
D means. They lied about the amount of deficient people. They tried to make
vitamin D into a rickets-preventing nutrient, ignoring the bunch of other
diseases (archive)
(MozArchive) prevented by
adequate amounts. Which they have also heavily understated (by a factor of 10 or
even more). They lied about the amount of vitamin D that causes toxicity. And
they lied about what that toxicity represents.
Imagine having the entire medical and scientific community at your fingertips,
and you try to get them to produce a single bad effect of vitamin D (because
it's just too fucking good, and threatens the medical industry's profits too
much). So they dig and dig and pathetically, they can only come up with
hypercalcemia - which simply means a blood calcium level that is higher than
their arbitrary norms. Then, they perform a magician's trick and assume that
this hypercalcemia will bring about disaster such as kidney failure. I have
actually read all their sources that allegedly prove the damage, and they
are all like this. Since it's impossible to show a direct connection
between vitamin D and organ damage or any other bad effect - even with dosages a
hundred times higher than what they think is toxic - they have to settle for
the phantom known as hypercalcemia, and hope no one notices (Diggy did :D). I
mean, don't you think that if they could actually prove such bad effects
directly, they would have? But they can't, so you get the hypercalcemia
boogeyman. Really fucking pathetic!
Let's remember that they control the territory here. They could have structured
the article however they wanted, cited whatever they wanted in a perfectly
cherry picked way if they wanted to (as with [24]). You can bet that if they
were able prove vitamin D to actually be bad, they would have left no doubt
about it. But reality simply does not allow this, and no amount of fudging can
change it so much as to reverse it completely. And so - if they can't fudge
their way to victory - they move on to strategy #2: complete burial of the other
(honest, empathetic) side. Imagine if their article was actually neutral, and
they let the vitamin D supporters speak. We'd smash the facade in just one or
two paragraphs. And therefore Wikipedia can't and doesn't give us even that much
- violating their own principles in the process. Because the Due
weight principle
still requires giving minority views the space. Even if it's only a little. But
we get zero (they do link Michael Holick several times, but pretend he supports
their bullshit). Because it has to be this way for the murderers in governments
and medical institutions to succeed in killing us off. Anyway - if you want to
learn something about vitamin D - visit the actually authoritative wiki: the
Vitamin D Wiki. And prepare to lose a few nights of
sleep :D.
Circumcision
Section written by an anonymous contributor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is safe to assume that Wikipedia is one of the most heavily manipulated
sources of information on the Internet when it comes to the topic of
circumcision.
The history of the Circumcision article is a rabbit hole in itself, littered
with drama. Between its inception in November 2001 and as of writing in April
2024, it has been edited over 15,000
times
(MozArchive) and has a
discussion archive
(MozArchive) that spans
eighty-five (85) pages. Explaining it in its entirety would take all day, so
here is a summary.
If you happened to browse Wikipedia on a summer day in 2004 and stumbled upon
its "Circumcision" article
(MozArchive), you would have
encountered lots of criticism of circumcision. So much so that even the first
phrase mentions that circumcision removes a highly sensitive part of the penis:
Circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all of the prepuce or
foreskin (including the ridged band), a highly sensitive part of the penis.
It is hard to believe that this comes from a publication that later became known
for aggressively promoting circumcision. We find lots of criticism and negative
information about circumcision in the 2004 version, such as:
some circumcised males retain a significant proportion of their nerve-rich
penile skin and have an amount of mobile skin remaining on the erect penis,
while others do not
The glans slowly becomes desensitized during the following month.
Many medical claims have been made to justify circumcision. These included
the prevention of epilepsy, penile cancer and phimosis. Circumcision
advocates today claim that it reduces urinary tract infections and HIV
infection, but these claims are strongly disputed and argued against.
(MozArchive) at the bottom
contained many sites critical of circumcision, far outweighing those in favour.
There was even a separate article about the most sensitive part of the foreskin,
the ridged band
The ridged band is a band of highly innervated and vascularised tissue that
is located just inside the tip of the foreskin of the human male near the
mucocutaneous boundary
The ridged band is invariably excised when a male is circumcised.
One might as well call it the "rich band", given how rich in nerve endings it
is. There was also a separate article about the movement of the foreskin called
The gliding action greatly reduces friction during intromission and coitus,
thereby reducing chafing and irritation.
Another article available back then was titled "Sexual effects of circumcision
"
(MozArchive). These separate
articles were redirected to the manipulated main articles Circumcision and
Foreskin. It's almost like they don't want anyone to know that a concept like
gliding action exists.
All this criticism of circumcision has largely been purged over time. Instead,
we get blatant glorification such as:
Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe, low-risk procedure when done by
an experienced practitioner.[73][74][75]
So what happened inbetween all those years? Circumphiles worked their way up to
administratorship using bait-and-switch techniques, and the owners of Wikipedia
did nothing to prevent it, meaning they either are unaware of it or they approve
of it. The first major circumcision promoter to gain administratorship was the
user "Jayjg".
Jayjg started editing Wikipedia in June of 2004 and was promoted to
administator (archive)
(MozArchive) in September
that year. Less than 48 hours after becoming an administrator, he touched the
circumcision article for the first
time (archive)
(MozArchive). What a
co-incidence! It couldn't possibly be related, right?
A year later, in July 2005, he was appointed as an
arbitrator) (archive))
(MozArchive) by none other
than founder Jimmy Wales, meaning he must have approved of Jayjg. Arbitrators
are members of the "Arbitration Committee", a virtual supreme court that Jimmy
Wales originally established to solve disputes between editors on Wikipedia.
Besides the owners of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Commitee is the highest
authority on the site, being able to revoke administrator rights and change
policies, in addition to the usual administrator abilities of blocking and
otherwise restricting users.
Over the following years, several circumcision promoters were promoted into
positions of authority, notably the users Avraham, Doc James (originally
"Jmh649"), and Zad68. Avraham was promoted to administrator in 2006 and
bureaucrat in 2009. Bureaucrats are able to add and remove administrators. When
Avraham became less active, Doc James (James Heilman, MD) took over his role in
maintaining the circumcision advertisement disguised as an encyclopaedia article
throughout the 2010s. Heilman was even a board member of the Wikimedia
Foundation, the organization that hosts Wikipedia. The board named itself the
"Board of Trustees". Whether Heilman is trustworthy shall be your judgement.
Their strategies are as usual, threatening or blocking undesirable editors, or
scrutinizing them to report any minor mistake they make to the Administrators'
Noticeboards (archive)
(MozArchive) at any
opportunity with the aim to get them expelled from the project.
(MozArchive), the editor
Tumadoireacht presented valid reasons not to trust the World Health Organization
or religious groups who consider circumcision as sacred as a source for
circumcision-related information:
There is a great deal of discussion of COI (conflict of interest) at
present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision
who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision
do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred
then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest. Just as it would
behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on
Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also
the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main
tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings.
Normally, conflicts of interest are strongly
discouraged
(MozArchive) on Wikipedia.
Now, how did administrator Guy Chapman (user "JzG") respond to these valid
points when he knew he couldn't possibly refute them? By applying a threat and
intimidation:
You are either very naive or very stubborn, or both. Would you like to know
what invariably happens when topic-banned editors come here to defend their
right to keep arguing their case, supported by a long spiel reiterating
their passionate belief that they are bringing The Truth™ and should thus be
allowed wide latitude to continue disrupting the project? I ask because you
may be about to find out the hard way.
"How dare you present irrefutable reasons not to trust authority views? Now shut
up, or else!"
As one would expect, Wikipedia has
place that prohibit people from editing once an administrator blocks them. Not
only is the individual not allowed to edit anymore, but no one else is allowed
to edit "on their behalf", as determined by the site administrators.
Additionally, any edits that administrators think have been made by the blocked
individual can be reverted immediately - no need to deal with their valid
arguments anymore. Ain't that convenient? This places the ultimate leverage over
the content into the hands of the site administrators.
Since those editors are no longer able to participate in administrator
elections, this creates the vicious cycle that the administrators get to decide
who gets to decide who can become an administrator. It is a pseudo-democracy.
Wikipedia tries hard to pass itself off as a democracy in its donation banners
(archive), while being the
opposite.
Let's see what we find in the article today:
Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe, low-risk procedure when done by
an experienced practitioner.
As of April 2024, the Sexual effects section reads:
The accumulated data show circumcision does not have an adverse
physiological effect on sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility.
Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or
pleasure.[93][94][95][96][97][98]
Behind this phrase, there are six "scientific" studies. That's how desperately
they want to convince us of this physically impossible claim. It doesn't take a
genius to realize that removing the foreskin reduces the number of nerve
endings. Given that nerve endings are the source of sensation, fewer nerve
endings mean less sensation. One of those studies that want to convince us
otherwise is by Australian Professor Brian Morris, a man who believes
circumcision should be required by
law, who created the circumphile
website "circinfo.net", and member of the "Gilgal Society", a circumphile
organization. He refers to circumcision as a "surgical vaccine"
(MozArchive)), which
actually is true given how harmful vaccines
are. This
fraudulent study from 2013 stood in the article for around a decade before being
removed. But never mind, five studies he directed still stand in the references
as of April 2024.
Two of those studies are also co-authored by John N. Krieger. One of them,
(archive), has the following gem in its
fine print:
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The first author (Brian J. Morris) is a member of the Circumcision
Academy of Australia, a not‐for‐profit, government registered, medical
association that provides evidence‐based information on male circumcision to
parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors
who perform the procedure. The second author (Stephen Moreton) is an
editor for http://CircFacts.org. The third author (John N. Krieger)
provided advice and supported the legal help to University of Washington for
the patenting of a circumcision device.
And you expect honest studies from patent holders of circumcision devices and
editors of circumphile websites?
Oh, by the way, Professor Brian Morris has an article about himself too. As of
2005 (MozArchive), it
stated:
He is controversial because he advocates circumcision despite not being a
medical doctor and using the name of the University of Sydney despite the
University not advocating his personal views.
Good luck finding this on modern Wikipedia.
This is what happens when people who own no foreskins are tasked with
documenting the functionality of the foreskin. And don't just take our word for
so!
Die Vorhaut enthält zahlreiche Meissnersche Tastkörperchen, die durch
Dehnung stimuliert werden. Auf diese Weise spielt die Vorhaut eine Rolle für
die Sexualität des Mannes.[111][112] Durch die Entfernung der Vorhaut ist
die Eichel nicht mehr permanent bedeckt; sie kann durch den ständigen
Kontakt mit der Luft sowie Reiben an der Kleidung an Empfindlichkeit
verlieren. Auch durch Entfernen von Vorhaut und Frenulum selbst kann die
Sensibilität herabgesetzt werden, da beide über zahlreiche Nervenenden
verfügen.[113] Nach einer belgischen Studie mit Befragung von 1.059
unbeschnittenen und 310 beschnittenen Männern wirkte sich eine Zirkumzision
deutlich negativ auf den sexuellen Genuss und die Orgasmusintensität bei
Reizung der Eichel aus.[114][115]
Translation:
The foreskin contains lots of Meissners corpuscles which are stimulated when
stretched. This way, the foreskin plays a role for the sexuality of a man.
Due to the removal of the foreskin, the glans is no longer covered and can
lose sensitivity through the constant contact with air and rubbing against
clothing. Additionally, the removal of the foreskin and frenulum can reduce
sensitivity, given that both contain many nerve endings. According to a
belgian study that surveyed 1059 intact and 310 circumcised men,
circumcision had clearly negatively affected sexual enjoyment and orgasm
intensity when the glans was stimulated.
If one language of Wikipedia contradicts another, you know something is going
seriously wrong. Given that in Germany the majority of men have their foreskins,
claming "circumcision does not affect sexual function" on the German-language
Wikipedia would be outright credibility suicide.
There have been attempts to add the study by Sorrells from
2007 (archive)
(MozArchive) - one critical
of circumcision - to the English article, but any mention of that study would
not survive for long. One such attempt took place in February
2008 (archive)
In 2007, Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. did a sensitivity study
using nylon filaments on healthy men with both intact and modified genitals.
The circumcised men lost some sensation in the nonablated areas and genital
cutting removed sensitive areas.
As one would expect, this addition was unwelcome. When Jake Waskett, a
circumphile editor and close friend of Avraham, woke up the next morning, he
went to his computer and looked at the recent edits to the circumcision article.
Without further ado, he reverted the
addition (archive)
(MozArchive), with the
following comment:
rv. we discuss individual studies in the sub-article. in the WP:SUMMARY, we
need to ... well, summarise
Oh, really? First of all, which sub article is meant? The one that was later
redirected to the main article (Sexual effects of circumcision)? Good luck
finding one occurence of him using this argument to remove a manipulated
circumphile study.
In August 2009, there were two attempts to mention the suicide of David Reimer
as a result of a botched circumcision in the article. As one would expect, it
did not survive there for long. The attempts were reverted by Jake
Waskett (archive)
(MozArchive) respectively:
WAY WAY too many changes, including picture placement, discuss each one on
talk please
Yeah, sure. Against circumcision? Go through our lengthy discussion process
first. In favour of circumcision? Come right in!
This is how they suffocate anything critical of circumcision by requiring it to
be discussed first while letting anyone adding supposed benefits of circumcision
edit to their heart's desire. This is not an isolated occurance; it happened
constantly throughout the history of both the foreskin (archive) and circumcision (archive) articles, often
accompanied with a link titled "WP:MEDRS", for which a more honest name would be
"WP:MÈRDE".
"WP:MEDRS" is a shortcut to the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
(medicine)) (archive)), a policy which gives the circumcision-supporting C.D.C.
(the same one that promoted DDT
(see 21:45), remember?) and the aforementioned W.H.O. control over what can
appear on Wikipedia:
Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific
bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S.
National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the
National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S.
National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the World Health Organization.
James Heilman, known as "Doc James" on Wikipedia, did not spend his Valentine's
Day 2016 making love, but monitoring the circumcision article on Wikipedia. On
one occasion, someone tried adding the name of circumphile Brian Morris to his
claim that the benefits of circumcising an infant outweigh the risks of doing so
by at least 100 to 1, so readers could judge for themselves whether or not to
trust someone named "Brian Morris". After only eleven minutes, Heilman
reported for duty (archive)
(MozArchive) and reverted the
addition. As a result, the only mention of Brian Morris' name is in the
references section where fewer readers bother looking.
By the way, have you observed Morris' manipulative choice of words? He weighs
"benefits" against "risks" instead of "losses". A "benefit" is a guaranteed
positive outcome that always occurs, whereas a "risk" only is a possible
negative outcome that may or may not occur.
From April
article would have you believe the following:
According to Bañuelos Marco & García Heil (2021) there is now "enough
literature supporting the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative
influence in sexual function per se" for it to be considered a settled
matter. However, the authors also write that an individual's body image and
self-esteem surrounding their own circumcision status may lead to a
subjective improvement or adverse change in these metrics, although this
would not be caused by "objective histological or physiological reasons". A
similar statement was made by Bossio & Pukall (2018), which concluded that
an individual's attitude toward their own circumcision status is more
important than their actual circumcision status in matters of sexual
functioning.
Let me summarize: If you have a positive attitude towards having had a body part
cut off from your defenseless infant self without you being able to consent, it
magically happens to improve your sexual function? What a load of crap.
Complications caused by circumcision are dismissed as rare and "individual
cases". They are listed with percentages instead of absolute numbers to make
them appear like a trivial statistic, even though they are life-altering for
men who are affected (archive)
The most common acute complications are bleeding, infection and the removal
of either too much or too little foreskin.[1][76] These complications occur
in approximately 0.13% of procedures.
Severe complications are rare.
Severe to catastrophic complications, including death estimated, in the USA
in 2010, at 1 in 11,000 cases, are so rare that they are reported only as
individual case reports.
Given that Wikipedia and its carefully curated sources lied to us about
circumcision not affecting sexual function, we can't even be sure how accurate
these numbers are.
Supposed benefits of circumcision are often restated throughout the article,
while negative effects are mentioned rarely, if at all. For example, as of
October 2024, the article only passingly mentions skin bridges once in its over
146,000 characters, whereas it boasts over ten times about how circumcision
supposedly reduces the risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), without
ever explaining how a lack of foreskin is supposed to prevent STIs from reaching
the urethra and entering the penis. Why think for yourself when you have "The
Scientists" to think for you, right?
Even if circumcision actually reduced the risk for STDs, it would not negate the
need for condoms during intercourse. But there is no word about condoms in the
entire article, making the appearance that circumcision is the panacea.
Wikipedia can't help but rave in several sections about how glorious
circumcision supposedly is, starting with the lead section:
The procedure is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted
infections and urinary tract infections [...]
In the Uses section:
In 2007, the WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
stated that they recommended adolescent and adult circumcision as part of a
comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high
endemic rates of HIV [...]
[...] circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in
high-risk populations if carried out by medical professionals under safe
conditions.
The World Health Organization in 2010 stated:
There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early
infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are
likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes
targeting adolescent boys and men
In 2020, the World Health Organization again concluded that male
circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention [...]
One powerful organization making the same conclusions repeatedly (surprise,
surprise) gets to regurgitate all over the article, where as whoever contradicts
with said conclusions gets to shut up.
Circumcision is most likely to benefit boys who have a high risk of UTIs due
to anatomical defects [...]
Given that the risk of UTI among this population is approximately 1%, the
number needed to circumcise to prevent UTI is approximately 100.
So a hundred foreskins are severed to prevent one infection? Imagine killing a
fly using a tank. Strange how Wikipedia failed to tell us that, isn't it?
Knowing most people wouldn't dig through the walls of text in the sources and
just swallow the junk information it serves, the circumcision promoters at
Wikipedia deliberately omitted the bit of information that would weaken the
appearance that circumcision is awesome. A trivial benefit is overstated while
the massive loss is quietly swept under the rug. Remember how Purdue Pharma
lied that less than 1% of opioid patients get
addicted, while omitting a decisive
fact, which is that the tested patients were not allowed to take any more pills
home? Wikipedia lifted this trick straight out of the Purdue Pharma textbook (archive)
In its effects section, Wikipedia won't miss the opportunity to fearmonger about
which scary diseases circumcision supposedly prevents:
Male circumcision reduces the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
transmission [...]
In 2020, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) reiterated that male
circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention if carried
out by medical professionals under safe conditions.
"Reiterated"? Like Brian Morris, the W.H.O. gets to dump its diarrhea into the
article multiple times, whereas Sorrells and his team were denied even one
mention. This is as far from neutrality as it can get.
A 2010 review found that circumcision reduced the incidence of HSV-2 (herpes
simplex virus, type 2) infections by 28%.
Of course, Wikipedia fails to provide absolute numbers, only providing relative
numbers. In relative numbers, two in a million are a 100% increase over one in a
million, where as in absolute numbers, that's a 0.0001% increase. These are
Circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV and other sexually
transmitted infections (STIs) ...
Circumcision is associated with a reduced prevalence of oncogenic types of
HPV infection [...]
Studies evaluating the effect of circumcision on the rates of other sexually
transmitted infections have, generally, found it to be protective.
Here, numbers are omitted entirely. Without numbers, a circumcision benefit that
only occurred in one in a billion people can still be stated as a benefit.
What Wikipedia of course fails to tell you is that 100% of circumcisions result
in:
Loss of sensory nerve endings. Remember how "a highly sensitive part of the
penis" stood at the beginning in the 2004 version?
Loss of built-in lubrication and moisturization of the glans.
Loss of the gliding mechanism during coitus.
Loss of protection for the glans. An unprotected glans constantly rubs against
underwear during sports, resulting in discomfort and a rough and dry glans
surface.
Reduced shaft skin surface. This means less shaft skin is available to expand
over an erect penis, which could cause pain. Normally, the foreskin is
retracted and converted into shaft skin during an erection.
Loss of penile thickness, given that the missing foreskin creates a gap
between the surfaces of the shaft and the glans.
A permanently altered, mushroom-like shape of the penis that the patient might
not appreciate in their impending adulthood.
Reduced possibilities for foreplay and stimulation by hand. Normally, the
inner surface of the foreskin and the glans stimulate each other while the
foreskin is moving. In fact, a woman who stimulates her partner's penis using
her hand mainly does so by moving the foreskin.
Wikipedia completely fails to count these guaranteed losses from
circumcision as complications.
Oh, and did we mention that cells from foreskins are sold on a microorganism
marketplace (archive) and
This once again shows people seem to think that we somehow magically live in a
time that's fundamentally different from other times in history in which the
name of science was severely abused by propaganda from the powerful. Almost
everyone today easily accepts that historically, politically constructed lies
were presented as confirmed by science, but somehow people refuse to believe it
could be the case nowadays.
[(archive)ttps://web.archive.org/web/20240412145421/https://simple.wikipedia.o
rg/wiki/Circumcision]
(MozArchive) is even more
strongly in favour of circumcision. Given its lower visibility, it can even get
away with outright referencing circumphile websites CircList and Choosing
Circumcision as if they were credible sources. As of April 2024, CircList is
referenced four times in the article. If the main English Wikipedia did that, it
would severely embarrass itself. It would be too obvious that it is trying to
advertise circumcision. Anyway, let's see what we find in this garbage dump:
People disagree about whether circumcision is a good for health and sexual
pleasure. People who think circumcision is a good idea may point to health
reasons.
And what about the people who believe otherwise, Mr. Neutral Wikipedia?
Many people think a penis looks better if it is circumcised. A study done in
the United States found that the women prefer a circumcised penis, to look
at and in sexual activity, especially if they are going to put their mouth
on the penis.[9]
The source:
Williamson, Marvel L.; Williamson, Paul S. "Women's Preferences for Penile
Circumcision in Sexual Partners". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy.
http://www.circlist.com/surveys/williamson-01.html
Let's see what else we find on the same page. Hint: Highly perverted nonsense.
the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect
circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual
recognition of the emerging man
The permanent exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.
No, sir. What renders the penis a sexual tool is the movement of the foreskin.
In countries where most boys are circumcised as babies, parents sometimes
think that uncircumcised boys will be teased. Some boys are mean to a boy if
his penis looks different.
Oh, really? And how about the countries where the majority is intact as nature
intended? Those countries are not hard to find, they are the majority of the
world outside your 'Murica.
Some myths about medical male circumcision:[11]
The source:
"Medical Male Circumcision Services". www.uwc.ac.za. Retrieved 2018-08-25.
Wait, did they link a "circumcision services" website as a source for their
"neutral" article? So much for "Wikipedia is ad-free". The advertisement is in
plain sight in the center.
There is even an entire section titled Reasons for
circumcision (archive)
(MozArchive). Notice the
absence of a counterpart, "Reasons against circumcision". The Simple English
Wikipedia is not even trying to hide that it is blatantly advertising
circumcision. Normally, such an article would qualify for
deletion (
archive)
Pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company,
item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they
can be encyclopedic.
Back to the main English Wikipedia. Surprisingly, the Foreskin article is less
manipulated, even occasionally contradicting the Circumcision article. For
example:
During the physical act of sex, the foreskin reduces friction, which can
reduce the need for additional sources of lubrication.
Oh, really? Then how come the Circumcision article claims the opposite? Only one
can be true.
In 2004 (MozArchive), the
article succinctly summarized the core functionality of the foreskin in its lead
section:
It serves a protective function for the ridged band, the frenulum and glans
penis, keeping these sexual tissues moist, lubricated and protected from
abrasion and injury.
Also notice how the article started with In mammals, whereas today it reads In
male human anatomy - as if humans were the only species to possess a foreskin.
Well, humans are the only species dumb enough to cut it off. Anyway, the next
section contained:
Unlike the skin on the rest of the body which is attached to the underlying
tissue, the prepuce and shaft skin are free to glide along the shaft of the
penis, which reduces friction, abrasion and loss of lubricating fluid during
sexual intercourse, frottage or masturbation.
This is nowhere to be found in the current version. Surprisingly, a few benefits
of the foreskin have still survived because they are too obvious to be denied,
but they are mostly buried deep in the article:
And the foreskin helps prevent the glans from getting abrasions and trauma
throughout life.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has written that
the foreskin is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich
in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue".
Since Wikipedia is based in the United States, where circumcision is commonly
performed, one can safely assume that many of the site administrators, the
people who get to decide who is allowed to edit, are circumcised themselves.
For a circumcised man, to acknowledge that circumcision is damaging means
acknowledging that oneself is permanently damaged, which is difficult. Too
difficult for some. So the easy way out of this horror is to outright deny the
harm, no matter how obvious it is. "I am not a permanently damaged person". If
one can't live with the thought of being a permanently damaged person, one might
as well try to pretend there is no damage.
"It can't be harmful. Otherwise, it means I am damaged for life."
No man wants to think of himself as a sexually defective person. Wikipedia
administrator Jayjg wants to believe he is good in bed. Avraham wants to believe
he feels his partner's vagina (if he has a partner) in its full glory. James
Heilman wants to believe he is a sexually functional being.
Likewise, Jimmy Wales appointed Jayjg as an arbitrator at a time he was already
known to be a circumphile. Mr. Wales would only give this level of authority to
users he approves of, and he gave this authority to a circumcision promoter. Why
would that be? Perhaps because he wants circumcision to be glorified to justify
his own circumcision, but he wants to let unpaid workers take over the dirty
work?
Unfortunately, the only way for a circumcised man to avoid acknowledging being
sexually defective is to deny that circumcision is harmful. Even scientists are
not superhumans, as some would believe. Those "scientists" who perform
circumcision-related studies are people with feelings and private lives. Any
scientist who is circumcised himself would be reluctant to acknowledge that he
is sexually damaged.
A person who has deluded themselves into thinking that circumcision is harmless
might want to enforce this belief onto their male offspring. How? By getting him
circumcised too. If circumcision were not harmful, there would be nothing wrong
about getting one's son circumcised as well, right? And that's how the vicious
cycle continues.
In a 2004 essay
(MozArchive), one of the
early administrators and bureaucrats of Wikipedia prophesied:
Seasoned, trained, well-paid marketeers, lobbyists, and political operatives
are going to come here, with the benefit of the experience of others in
subverting Wikipedia for personal gain. Don’t let them get away with it. So
far, there are only a few, and they are poorly organized. That will change
when the stakes become higher.
And this is precisely what happened. A site with the publicity of Wikipedia will
inevitably become the target of people with shady intentions. And it failed to
defend itself against circumphiles.
In more than two decades, the owners of Wikipedia - the Wikimedia Foundation -
did nothing to counteract circumcision promoters on their platform. They could
have removed circumcision promoters' administrator permissions, they could have
prohibited circumcision promoters from editing circumcision-related articles,
they could have reinstated editors blocked by circumcision promoters, they could
have removed fraudulent studies by openly circumphile perverts like Brian
Morris, but they did nothing.
Now, you might ask yourself, "why didn't the owners of Wikipedia do anything
against all this?" There are two possibilities. Either they are blissfully
unaware of what happened to one of the most edited pages on their largest wiki,
or they approve of it. The judgement is yours.
Wikipedia's own founder shits on it
Since I don't want to misrepresent him, I will just let Larry Sanger speak for
himself. Here are his reports: Wikipedia is Badly
Biased (archive)
(MozArchive). Very worth
reading. Some quotes:
Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten,
Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten
policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should
avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid
“false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.
The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known
scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast
and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server
scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was
personally involved in surveiling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major
political figure certainly must include the bad with the good.
In other words—and this is the point crucial to evaluating an article’s
neutrality—a neutral article is written not to take sides on issues of
controversy. It does not matter whether one or both sides believe their
point of view is totally factual and supported with incontrovertible proof.
Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is
neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering
words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public
Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and
“Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to
some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long
as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are
“false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its
own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they
are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia
article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of
Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but
then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on
Wikipedia.
It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV
(i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that
that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly
incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary
and common one.
And from the second article:
As to the second impeachment trial (that of January, 2021), in the Donald
Trump article, no information is offered on either side about the arguments
for impeachment, either in the House or the Senate proceedings. Certainly
there is nothing remotely representing the perspective of Trump and his
defenders.
Can any of this information on the China Biden scandal be found—even in a
twisted, biased form—in the Wikipedia article on Joe Biden? Nope. As of this
writing, that article contains not a single word about the China deals,
Rosemont Seneca, Tony Bobulinski, the laptop, or the CEFC.
So, one of the two founders of Wikipedia admits it's anything but neutral, and
gives us a few examples from US politics and other issues. Clearly, we can see
that there is a wide breadth of topics on which Wikipedia is unreliable. Anyway
if even the creator of Wikipedia has himself given up on it and wrote several
big articles trashing it, why do you still trust it?
The conclusions of Wikipedia are predetermined
And the supposedly noble principles - as well as the idea of Wiki being
community written - are just a cover for that reality. It is very obvious to me.
What this means is that - for every article where this applies (anything
controversial the Ministry wants to control the narrative on) - they pick a view
they want to support in advance, then completely ignore their own stated
principles in order to push it. Many examples have already been given:
Parapsychology gives 8 references for the claim that the majority of
mainstream scientists reject it, but none of them support it
Plasma cosmology contains editors' opinions
Alternative medicine is unashamedly written as a hit piece
COVID vaccines ignores reliable government sources
September 11 attacks violates Due weight by not giving AE911 space at all
Moon landing, as above, does not give space to significant minority views
Coconut oil attacks CO as a health food in Wikipedia's own voice
Hunza people uses an extremely unreliable source as basis for its entire
thesis
White genocide violates impartial tone and also cites sources that do not
support its claims
Vitamin D misquotes its sources and cherry picks content from them
Really the only principle that matters for the Ministry is reliable sources; it
allows Wikipedia to remove its opponents already at the start of the race. But
even the reliable sources step out of line sometimes. And in those cases, they
are misinterpreted or just given up outright. All other principles are
unashamedly ignored. They do this because...
The real point of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is designed to keep you being an NPC. The good boy / girl who takes
his / her vaccines, works his / her shitty job, trusts the mainstream narratives
(this helps the rulers hide their crimes like 9 / 11 or the fake moon landing,
as well as bury competing scientific / medical theories and keep the current
industries running), questions nothing, and sees nothing wrong with any of it -
or even is proud of being an NPC (because it's "scientific", "rational", etc).
They lure you with comprehensive articles on cats, cars, compilations of
historical events that are hard to find elsewhere, etc - and suddenly you are
yet another fish, caught in the net. Because Wikipedia's neutrality is the
strongest example of doublespeak I've ever seen. The reader (now under the
Ministry's spell) assumes that every article on there is just like every other
one, but actually every single one that is both societally relevant and even a
little controversial will be compromised to hell (there are many, many
more I could have shown). The malicious articles are buried in a pile of regular
ones, which makes them unseen Trojan horses that eventually capture the minds
of the Wikipedia victims. And it just so happens that the malicious ones always
jump out when a really important topic comes around.
Imagine that the moon landing article presented the conspiracy side as a
significant view (which it is) and did it honestly. How many of Wiki's readers
would be compelled to explore the topic further? How many would then admit that
the moon landing was a fraud, after all? How many would then start questioning
other things in their lives? Would the rulers have been able to pull off a
"pandemic" if most people already knew it's yet another ace (alongside the moon
landing, 9 / 11, GM food, climate change) in the rulers' cheat pack of cards?
Every small crack in a person's conviction will eventually break down their
castle of confidence in the rulers' narratives and the way the whole world
works. Which would eventually result in bringing down of the powerful people and
a complete change of the existing culture. This is why the Ministry has to keep
all the controversial issues fully under its control. They absolutely
must portray every alternative view as a bunch of nonsense and its supporters as
bumbling retards. And Wikipedia (even moreso than Google) is their most
important weapon in doing so. It is considered authoritative and enjoys a
privileged place in the results of all search engines. But it is all just an
evil spell, that can be broken by good information and avoiding Wikipedia usage.
Can you fix Wikipedia?
Ha-ha! - shouts the conspiracy theorist. I will foil the Illuminati's plans by
editing the relevant Wikipedia articles! Censors better hide in their holes now,
because the Truth Warrior is coming! Onwards!
Oh no! The censors have closed the gate right as the great Truth Warrior was
reaching for his Axe of Truth! No matter, let's try another entry point!
Drats! The Illuminati closed yet another gate right in front of my face! The
Truth Warrior has to wave the white flag for now, but will get his enemies some
other time...
Hope you liked this little story. By the way, this is how a regular article
looks like:
Edit button, plain as a day. But on anything you'd actually want to edit (just
checked Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, Project Veritas...), it's
replaced by the View source button. Ha-ha! - Illuminati taunts can be heard from
behind the gates. Did you think we'd actually allow a plebeian to challenge our
narratives? Get outta here!
And so, the Truth Warrior gets out, makes his own site, and exposes Wikipedia
for all to see. Those damn gates can't stop me here! - he shouts triumphantly.
Anyway, is Wikipedia fixable in principle? For a while I entertained the idea
that neutrality is dead on arrival, and bias will always devour attempts to
bring it. However, Larry Sanger once wrote a
piece (archive)
(MozArchive) that tried to
justify aiming for neutrality regardless, and well, I think it's pretty
convincing and the idea shouldn't be given up on so easily. After a while I
and thought - well - maybe this is it, the fabled neutrality finally appeared in
the flesh (or well, letters). The article actually tells you what they are
without shitting on them. You will learn why people believe them and how they
justify them without unnecessarily shilling them. You will also get to read a
neutral comparison between the official 9/11 story and the conspiracy one, with
competing sources cited. Check it out, it's one of the best things I've ever
read. How I wish all Wiki articles were like this. But they can't be, because
it's not created for this. In Wiki's case, it's not even simple bias creeping
in, but actively trying to shill for the mainstream and bury alternatives as
much as possible. Either way, neutrality is possible; just rare and has to be
found outside of the Ministry.
UPDATE July 2024: I was thinking about how hard would it really be to create
a truly neutral Wikipedia article. And I concluded - not that hard. Just
bring an expert (or more than one) for each side of the relevant issue. Let's
imagine I wanted to learn about human evolution. Upon entering the relevant
article, I should see a short introduction of the topic, then a list of the
relevant views, such as:
Humans appeared from monkeys by way of random mutation and natural selection,
with minor contributions from other processes
Humans appeared from monkeys by way nonrandom mutations / natural genetic
engineering, with minor contributions from other processes
Humans came from a hybridization event by monkeys and pigs, with minor
contributions from other processes
Aliens created humans as they are today
God created humans as they are today
God directed evolution but made it look like random mutations
Any other theory that exists
Then - under every view - the strongest arguments for those views would be given
by a few of the experts who believed in them. After that, relevant references
and people supporting the views would be listed. Then, every view would get a
criticism section (written by - of course - the critics, not the supporters).
Finally, an impartial mod would rid the resulting article from needless insults,
rambling, irrelevant references, etc. Is it so hard? That's what Wikipedia was
supposed to be, but failed. And every fork is failing too, sadly.
It wasn't always like this
It all comes down to the principle of neutrality, which has changed
significantly over the years. Check out this NPOV writeup (MozArchive) from
2004. Hey, let's play a game. Try to tell me the main difference between the
quotes from the old NPOV and the new one. Starting with the old:
The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles
without bias, representing all views fairly.
The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't
assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased,
"objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent
all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate
that any one side is correct.
We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to
which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call
"knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort
to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of
them.
A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that
"human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all
different topics.
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point
of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as
far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have
been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means
carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then
attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly,
proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all
significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in
proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their
representation in reliable sources on the subject.
When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most
authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and
other NPOV disagreements.
Have you figured out the answer yet? It's in the phrase reliable sources, which
figures prominently in the new NPOV (19 mentions), and not at all in the old one
(ctrl+f for reliable source finds nothing). Somewhere along the way, Wikipedia
decided it's supposed to describe only the views contained in reliable sources
instead of all sources - like in the old one. This, of course, changed
everything. Suddenly, an article could be written to promote some specific
views, with any others disappeared by default. Originally, Wikipedia was
created to prevent exactly this! The old quotes made it clear, that all
significant views were supposed to be included. But wait - it gets even better
for the old Wiki, and worse for the new one. Check these quotes from the old
NPOV page:
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a
fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree.
To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views
without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present
competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents,
and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present
these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
[...] so that all the major participants will be able to look at the
resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and
as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion).
Neutral presentation of all viewpoints on a certain topic; so neutral - in fact
that both (or more) sides have to find the reporting acceptable. How noble. It
feels almost nostalgic to read this, even though I wasn't there at the time;
because I realize that something which could have been beautiful was claimed and
destroyed by the dark forces. As you could have guessed, this principle is
completely missing in the new NPOV page, which is focused on letting the
prevailing view describe (as in, shit on) the opposing view (or views). Modern
Wikipedia does not care about the feelings of minority (or just unwanted) views;
they are only there to receive the beating from the big bully mainstream view.
So in short, to state the difference between the old NPOV and the new one in one
quote:
If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views
in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or
among the concerned parties.
Old Wiki would have allowed - for example - experts in photo analysis that deny
the moon landing a fair description of their views. Or parapsychologists that
work in science. Climate or vaccination skeptics. New Wiki just throws them all
into the fringe or pseudoscience box, regardless of qualifications. It's one
view to rule them all and stomp on the others. That's the modern Wiki view of
neutrality - exactly the opposite of what Sanger envisioned. Hey, he predicted
what would happen, though:
Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find
reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias
policy
:D. Let's now track the decline through time:
(MozArchive) already
mentioned reliable online resources, though I guess in an innocent context. I
think in hindsight it might have taken the wrong turn right there, already.
(MozArchive) was when the
stupid Undue weight rule had come in, which started the discrimination against
non-mainstream views - NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all
significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and
should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. This is in contrast to
2005's one emphasizing all views - Instead it says to fairly represent all
sides of a dispute and Articles should be written without bias, representing
all views fairly. Now that I dig deeper, it is obvious that 2006 was already
the beginning of the switch from a neutral Wikipedia to the one where the
mainstream views get preferential treatment.
(MozArchive) started
including reliable sources in the first paragraph. The decline continued.
In a 2008 page
(MozArchive), the quote in
the first paragraph was already very similar to the modern one; this was when
the Trojan horse of reliability had actually broken through the castle's
defenses. And it changed Wikipedia aims to present competing views in
proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the
concerned parties to Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion
to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. No more experts
that don't come from the clique of reliables.
(MozArchive)added this
paragraph:
In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the
attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those
views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example,
to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of
extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes
this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority
view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the
field.
It also changed the balanced selection of sources from 2008 into the careful selection of reliable sources. Now it was no longer about describing all existing views neutrally, but according to relative levels of support and a careful (one side gets priority) instead of balanced (all sides equal) sourcing. In other words, what was closer to the mainstream got better treatment. 2009 also brought us a new section called Giving "equal validity" which says: The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. And so, specific alternatives were now being attacked on the Wiki meta pages for the first time.
The prediction that Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia wasn't there anymore. Neither was the belief that Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. There's no way that the totalitarian institutions had taken over and they didn't like you thinking for yourself - that's just conspiracy talk :D. Either way, 2009 was when the Trojan horse started letting soldiers out inside the castle and capturing it. **It cannot be overstated how significant that year was**. The original idea of Wikipedia had been seriously wounded and put on life support then.
(MozArchive) was when the
word proportionately appeared in the first paragraph. This fully allowed not
giving minority (or unwanted) views their deserved spaces in main articles.
The naming policy also changed to Titles should follow the Article titles
policy and be neutral wherever possible from 2009's A neutral article title is
very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the
proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit
the highest degree of neutrality. No more neutrality as the value to strive
for at all costs - only when convenient.
(MozArchive) removed the
bit about significant minority views from the first paragraph. The Giving
equal validity section added this gem: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience,
speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories
should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
Wow! How blatant. This was when the "one view to rule them all" policy had
begun to bloom, I think. And of course they compared all non-Ministry approved
views to the flat Earth, in a true glowie
fashion. The naming policy has once again downgraded the importance of
neutrality in favor of other values - In some cases, the choice of name used
for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are
generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. Safe to say that
life support was pulled from the original Wikipedia that year.
In 2012
(MozArchive), the pretense
of caring about minority views evaporated completely when they changed As
such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of
certain points of view to As such, the neutral point of view does not mean
exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable
points of view. Notable and verifiable :D. According to - of course - the
reliable sources :D. Anyway, the fun ends here - the 2013 entry has nothing
new that I can see, and neither does any year after. So, the takeover of
Wikipedia had been finished by 2012.
Wikipedia forks
Citizendium
Larry Sanger's fork. You'd think it would be good, but sadly it isn't. This
won't be a comprehensive review, because there just aren't enough positive
qualities justifying Citizendium over Wikipedia. We will simply look over a few
of their articles to show it. Starting with Apollo Moon landing hoax
claims
The Apollo Moon landing hoax or simply Moon hoax is a generalized name for
the conspiracy theory that the Project Apollo Moon landings were falsified
by NASA and the U.S. government.
The standard conspiracy theory smear well known from Wiki.
No mainstream scientist, engineer, astronomer, politician, government
employee, or public figure, however, has ever embraced these claims
Really? Not a single one? This hit piece is already tiring me out. You have
to be standing on some kind of Mount Everest of arrogance to be able to state
this nonsense in bright light. Wikispooks (archive)
(MozArchive) mentions many
and hell, even the Bill Kaysing (that Citizendium itself references) fits the
bill.
and they are widely disbelieved by the vast majority of the American people.
A 1999 Gallup poll, for instance, found that 89% of the U.S. public
believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided
Again, Wikispooks shows many polls with way higher rates. This is just cherry
picking to try to dismiss the skeptical view. This piece of pretend journalism
never allows an actual moon landing skeptic to speak (if the strongest pro-hoax
arguments were able to be actually stated by their proponents, Citizendium would
probably have to burn the entire article because the pro-landing position would
be so embarrassing in comparison), but does list a few strawmen to easily knock
down in its own voice. Wow, that's so much better than Wikipedia! Moving on to
piece, we're not interested in the mainstream position so we'll jump straight to
the Conspiracy theories section:
Given the direct video evidence of an airliner hitting one of the two WTC
towers, it seems absurd that such conspiracies exist
Fuck off! Let the readers decide what is absurd or not.
but they draw on a variety of purported evidence including tapes from NORAD
that claim to show malicious cover-up in not scrambling fighter jets quickly
after reports
How about - again - let the fucking proponents state their arguments instead
of vomiting this disgusting caricature?
In response to Loose Change, skeptical groups on the Internet centered
around the James Randi Internet forum have produced a response film called
Screw Loose Change which adds subtitles and cutaway notes to the original
containing corrections and responses. These responses include allegations
that the film includes quotes taken out of context, uses logical fallacies,
misrepresents evidence, and makes dubious connections to events without
explaining the proper historical context. Similarly, Popular Mechanics has
responded in depth with evidence gleaned from experts that debunk many of
the contentions made by conspiracy theorists.
Fucking useless pseudoskeptical
groups (archive)
(MozArchive) get a word in
before the actual supporters of the alternative view in question. Because how
dare we let those conspiracy theorists open their mouths; they're worse than
cockroaches, right? And so, on the supposed alternative to Wikipedia, we see
non-mainstream views get debunked but we don't even learn what's being debunked
except that it surely has been. Experts tell us so :D.
Okay, that's enough suffering for today. Citizendium clearly isn't interested in
letting its readers see why supporters of alternative views hold the positions
that they do. And if that's the case, just what exactly makes it different
from Wikipedia? Paying lip service to non-mainstream views by knocking down a
few strawmen? Then I'd rather have the blatant shitting on conspiracy theories
and pseudoscience by Wikipedia; at least no one's going to get confused into
thinking he's getting something unbiased. Citizendium doesn't share the original
Sangerian view of neutrality and is therefore useless as a Wikipedia
alternative (btw, Sanger himself isn't involved with the site since 2020).
Justapedia
A Wikipedia fork (that I found on an anti-Wikipedia forum) that promises to give
us true knowledge in both its logo seen above as well as its About
page (archive)
(MozArchive) - Help create a
world in which everyone can freely share in the infinite expansion of true
knowledge. Of course, a thinking person will surely see the fundamental problem
in this, namely - how do you determine true knowledge? It's quite arrogant to
think you have it - unless you are God or a similar entity. Of course, every
writer thinks he's right, or else he wouldn't write (unless financial, etc
motives are involved) - but claiming true knowledge is quite different. It means
you think you are above criticism; that the topic has been fully explored, and
your view etched onto the Board of Truth for all eternity. I might be reading
too much into a stray statement, but to me it seems like Justapedia supports an
anti-discovery mindset. What's even worse is that their articles don't end up
being anything special, because...they are copied Wikipedia hit-pieces! Which
are - of course - very easy to criticize and very far from true knowledge. To
show some examples...
(MozArchive) article is
basically the same as the Wiki one. Just as the Moon landing conspiracy
theories
(MozArchive) one, which also
makes the same nonsensical claims about 400000 people needing to be in on the
fake moon landing. Let's check out some that I haven't viewed at Wiki, to see if
I can find a semblance of value in them, like say human
evolution (archive)
(MozArchive); of course,
this one is terrible too - basically repeating the standard neo-Darwinist story
without question. And so, Justapedia appears useless just like Citizendium and
all other Wiki forks - but at least it skips the cover and tells us it just
wants to bestow true knowledge (AKA knowledge from the mainstream Gods) upon us
unenlightened woo-woo believers. It is obvious that if you wanted a Wikipedia
fork that was worth anything, its articles would need to be written from scratch
- that is how irredeemable the Wiki hit-pieces are. Yet, that's not what
happened here, so into the trash Justapedia goes.
Hey, I'm in the mood for more pain, so let's look at some other details
concerning Justapedia. They have a "foundation" with a shitty
site (archive)
(MozArchive) made in the Wix
Website Builder (lol). The CSS is also broken in Pale Moon, so the "foundation"
owners have so little web design skill that they can't even design a working
site in a generator. The first thing you see - aside from the low quality logo,
in which part of the text is "swallowed" by the sea and barely visible - and the
menu where there is no margin between the text and its containers - is this:
Gimme all your money! But for what? What's so great about Justapedia that
justifies donating to it? Their testimonials section only includes shitting on
Wikipedia, but no praise for themselves at all. Their marketing
video that I dragged myself through
(oh well, it's only 3 minutes of pain) is filled with happy cartoon characters
and nice-sounding slogans. They appeal to objective and unbiased facts while
trying to prevent their destruction by personal opinions and political ideology.
There is more in the vid but the main theme in it appears to be preserving true
history (where presumably, the one on Wikipedia is fake or manipulated). Do
they have examples of how they are planning to accomplish their aims, though? In
the vid, they claim to have dedicated researchers and historians that will
bring their vision into reality; but, is there anyway to check their work to
confirm there is anything to it beyond promises? The video doesn't talk about
that but their main page
(MozArchive) prominently
displays a Feature Showcase which is basically a diff between the Wikipedia
article on a certain topic, and the Justapedia one. You'd think it would
showcase their best existing attempt at exposing and countering Wiki's bad
influence. So which article did they choose for the museum exhibit? The Big Lie.
(MozArchive). So what has
changed?
Basically all the stuff about the history of the Big Lie strategy and Hitler's
original usage of it is copied straight from Wiki, and it makes the majority of
Justapedia's article. I bet you can't wait for Justapedia's shiny, totally
non-manipulative modifications to the later parts, so I won't keep you waiting.
Drum roll...Justapedia deleted all references to Donald Trump's supposed usage
of the same strategy. I guess this is what they mean by ridding Wiki's
articles of political biases - burying criticisms of Donald Trump. Don't get me
wrong, I don't respect Wiki at all and I don't necessarily think their
application of the Big Lie here is neutral, objective, or relevant (I have not
researched this specific issue, as it does not interest me that much). Yet, it
is obvious that it's not the elimination of political bias that's Justapedia's
aim here, but the defense of their God, Donald Trump. You could say they just
wanted to keep the article focused entirely on the original usage of the Big Lie
strategy, but that would be wrong, as they have included these quotes:
The Government of China has falsely called the Uyghur genocide
(2014–present) a "big lie" perpetrated by hostile forces.[13][14][15]
Andrew Wilson of the European Council on Foreign Relations described the
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as "the War of the Big Lie. The Lie that
Ukraine doesn't exist. The Lie that Ukraine has no right to full sovereignty
because it is a puppet state of the West. The Lie that A invaded B because
C is to blame – the West, the expansion of NATO, the USA's global
hegemony."[16]
So, listing other usages of the Big Lie is acceptable, as long as Justapedia is
fine with the agendas coming along for the ride (anti-China, pro-psycho
Zelensky). Not that I'm taking sides on whether Ukraine "deserves" to exist, or
necessarily supporting what China did (I know zero about this particular
situation). But the statements in those quotes are very biased, including
adjectives like falsely and the extremely one-sided description of the Ukraine
situation in that second quote - with no other quotes to counter it, killing
neutrality. My point is to showcase the true aims of Justapedia, which do not
include the heroic fight for true knowledge or giving space to different
perspectives (as one of the perspectives - the one criticizing Trump - has been
deleted; while others were kept that may or may not be valid) like they promised
in their marketing video. To be quite honest, I think their different
perspectives shtick is a cover, and they told us what they really want in their
logo and all the other times they claimed to fight for true knowledge (AKA their
version of it to the exclusion of any other), spread objective facts and fight
political bias (AKA other groups' bias) etc. They are very biased, maybe moreso
than Wiki itself, as they inherit their enemy's bias (as seen in all their
copied conspiracy theory hit pieces) and add their own (pro-Trump and surely
other elsewhere) on top of it. And as the Big Lie is Justapedia's best example
to advertise their superiority over Wikipedia, we know there will be absolutely
nothing useful to find here. As expected, the hope for a sane Wikipedia fork has
been dashed from right in front of our faces once again.