User:KingOfAllThings/My opinion on editors of Southern private school articles

'''WARNING! THIS ESSAY CONTAINS CONTENT ABOUT MY PERSONAL BELIEFS. THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT FACT.''' Almost all of the Wikipedians who edit Southern private school articles like to call the schools racist, offensive, discriminatory, and more. I've seen some try to reverse their actions because these statements are obviously not neutral, but editors like Jacona like to say that it is censorship and that Wikipedia is not censored. I do not believe at all that what this editor is trying to justify as censorship is actually active censorship.

First of all, Wikipedia is politically biased towards the left. We all know that. I mean, come on. It's the internet. Basically everyone here is a left-winger. Anyways, because of the site's bias, they like to think that news sources like CNN and HuffPo are reliable and fact-based, but the actual fact of the matter is that they are not at all fact based. They are mostly opinion articles. Take CNN for example. CNN's talk shows are considered reliable on Wikipedia, and all they do on there is bash the Republican Party with their own opinions. However, Fox News, which bashes the Democratic Party exclusively, is considered unreliable. In this case, if Fox's talk shows are unreliable, then so are CNN's. Now let's look at HuffPo. Just the article titles themselves show the pure opinions and attacking that goes on at their newspaper. "Schools That Were Segregation Academies Now Ban Pregnant And LGBTQ Students", "Sen. Ted Cruz may have told his biggest lie yet with the claim that Republicans never engaged in court packing when they controlled the White House and Congress" among more are pure examples of the opinions of HuffPo. In my opinion, both HuffPo and CNN are extremely unreliable sources, and we need to hold another RfC.

Anyways, back on the matter on hand. I don't dislike the editors themselves, I just dislike how they portray schools down here in the South. I mean, I'm a student at a so called "segregation academy". They are, from a firsthand perspective, not at all discriminatory. So, in short, these editors need to rethink their "anti-racism" statements on these articles and look for more neutral and reliable sources.