User:RTShadow

The Fire Is Worse
Things aren't getting better with respect to Wikipedia's left wing bias. What is noticeable now is a trend to go to a well known conservative person (scholar, politician, or otherwise), and add in "controversy" in the form of articles written specifically to challenge that person's viewpoints, in order to portray them in a negative light. These articles are most often just a position of opinion by the person who wrote the article, which honestly shouldn't be included on the page. It is just done so by the progressive editors on Wikipedia to tear someone down that they don't agree with, or share viewpoints with. Considering how many different media outlets that at one time were quality, that are now questionable (CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc), it indicates a significant bias. You don't see this happening nearly as often for liberal/progressive well known persons. One has to wonder if Wikipedia can ever get back to center again and stop with this double standard.

Wikipedia Is A Dumpster Fire
There was a time when i enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, not hardcore, I don't know a lot of the language used as far as "WP" etc, but at one point debate was welcomed, even on political topics, and common sense prevailed.

Those days are long gone. Wikipedia is now edited by and large by a tight knit group of over-zealous progressive editors who work together to ensure that the website pushes their own left-wing viewpoint on topics, while silencing anyone who dare try and discuss alternate (and often times the correct) point of view. Anything they can label "right-wing" or "racist" with reference towards conservatives, libertarians, and now even classical liberals, they do so with glee. Probably one of the more glaring examples is the Fascism page.

Whether or not “fascism” is or is not “right wing” may be debated, but that really isn’t the issue here. The real issue is that there seems to be a distinct and glaring double standard when it comes to comparing the political leanings of “fascism”, as to how it is worded within the article, to how other articles that could be considered “left wing” are written. One progressive editor wrote “There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists”. This viewpoint basically concedes that communism is in and of itself a left wing viewpoint. So when you go to the communism page, if it were written like the fascism page, you would find “radical, left-wing” in the lead in paragraph, right?

Non only is the term “left-wing” not found in the lead in, you won’t find that term on the “communism page” until you go deep into the page, under “Left communism”, roughly the 16th section of the page. The term can also be found buried even further within the page. Yet that is only the beginning of this double standard.

So perhaps we can look at Marxism, another topic that is generally viewed as “left-wing”. Once again, the term “left-wing” is found buried on the page, in fact, not actually part of the page itself at all, at least, not as encyclopedic knowledge, it is only found under the categories at the very bottom. Again, this is not supportive of what is happening on the “fascism” page.

Lets move on now to “socialism”. The term left-wing is in fact mentioned 13 times total (9 times within the content of the article), and it is doubtful that anyone would argue that socialism is NOT left-wing. But even for socialism, you won’t find the term “left-wing” mentioned until deep within the page, no where near the lead in paragraph.

The most telling fact of all about this entire discussion is the fact that Antifa, or “anti-fascism”, is the opposite of “fascism” by the very virtue of the name itself. Yet on the “anti-fascism” page, yet again, you won’t find “left-wing” until you go deep into the page, buried in the second to last paragraph discussing only one aspect of the anti-fascist movement.

But within the “anti-fascism” page you find statements that admit to the idea of anti-fascism having held many different political positions over the years, right in the lead in, quote “holding many different political positions, including social democratic, nationalist, liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, trade unionist, anarchist, socialist, pacifist and centrist viewpoints.”

The obvious question then is this: If those fighting fascism come from so many different political philosophies, then how in good conscience can editors on the fascism page pigeon-hole the ideology of fascism into strictly “right wing”? Is the anti-fascism page, with all of its sources, completely wrong in the description of who all has fought fascism over the years? Or, more likely, are the editors on this page, the fascism page, putting on blinders and tunnel visioning the idea that fascism can “only be right wing” based on the very narrow viewpoints of the editors themselves and a few choice sources that back their own political ideology?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the “anti-fascist” page has to be wrong, or the “fascism” page is wrong. Please explain, and don’t use the cop-out “well, I didn’t write that page” excuse either. Both pages exist on one platform, Wikipedia, meaning they should match. I for one am against labeling any wide range ideology as “left” or “right” within the lead paragraph due to the complexities inherent to each ideology. This should have been fixed, due to how foolish it looks. But no, not only will it NOT be fixed, the progressive editors created their own little "consensus" title within the talk page, in order to ward off anyone who DARE question their viewpoint.

If you do attempt to discuss the topic, they "WP" you, incorrect. You can state you don't want OTHER pages changed, that they are provided as evidence that the fascism page does not meet wiki standards, but the mob does not care. They also brought "communism" into the discussion, then when shown how the communism page they compared IS actually written correct, they bring out the "WP" hammer again, apparently NOW the "communism" topic is not in line with the discussion (again, they brought it up LOL). They go further: “Fascism and anti-fascist are not necessarily polar opposites” they say, which is contradictory to common sense, to be perfectly honest. Perhaps not POLAR, as in entirely, but they make no concessions whatsoever as to the fact that fascism is not an aligned political ideology. One need look no further than what is happening in America right now, straight out of "1984", the tearing down of statues, changing the names of streets, "history MUST be rewritten", and these fascists are all part of the progressive left, including a media that is in its most shameful period in American history. But no, just keep telling yourselves "Fascism is right wing only", as even antifa themselves participate in the very activities that are in and of themselves considered specifically fascist.

But, none of this can be brought up, because these editors will use "WP" to discredit a user simply because they disagree with the viewpoint. You either goose step with them, or you are deleted and pushed out. It isn't a question whether the topics an editor like myself brings up, it's simply that they disagree and ignore the evidence because it doesn't fit their agenda. They use WP as a weapon to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda

As such I very rarely edit anything political or that has opposing viewpoints on the liberal or conservative side. This is what has made wikipedia so bad over the last 10 years in terms of information about political topics, and it's only going to get worse. I'll be sticking to automotive pages for the most part, at least till they find a way to politicize those too.RTShadow (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Previous User Description (Pre June 2020)
If you would like to discuss something with me, please do. I am a member of the large yet outcast community of wikicitizens who does not believe in Global Warming as it is currently presented by Wikipedia. Many of us feel that Global Warming is a natural progression of the earth's natural temperature, and that there is very little if any evidence supporting that anything done by man has had any effect whatsoever on the global climate, or perhaps, more appropriately: we believe that man can not in any way effect global climate, except perhaps within the context of nuclear winter.

This is not a debate page about my beliefs, barring actual scientific evidence that is actually conclusive, you will not change my thoughts, I have seen all the so called evidence, the problem with nearly all of the tests and research is that it is being done by scientists who have an environmental agenda, which is unfortunate. There is no "scientific consensus" agreeing with global warming either, so stop that nonsense.

None of this may be presented on the Global Warming page, but I most certainly will present it on my user page.