The Official Inauguration of Donald J. Trump News Thread: Reality sets in Edition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tudd;51704827]Well stand corrected. I have only seen the recent interviews and he never said anything close to that.[/QUOTE] But... his Wikipedia page says it [QUOTE]He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "[B]peaceful ethnic cleansing[/B]" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[/QUOTE] How could you not know

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705166]But... his Wikipedia page says it How could you not know[/QUOTE] Ah, yes, wikipedia, the bastion of truth.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705166]How could you not know[/QUOTE] Because he only watched what his friends wanted him to watch. [editline]21st January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705171]Ah, yes, wikipedia, the bastion of truth.[/QUOTE] What are citations.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705171]Ah, yes, wikipedia, the bastion of truth.[/QUOTE] Almost every cited note on his Wikipedia page is him in interviews and the like talking about ethnic cleansing and/or a "white only nation", implying the removal of non whites. You serious dude?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705171]Ah, yes, wikipedia, the bastion of truth.[/QUOTE] Let me guess, 'but anyone can edit it'? Always a shit criticism of Wikipedia. Like you can check the citations yourself.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705171]Ah, yes, wikipedia, the bastion of truth.[/QUOTE] Yeah actually, it's a pretty fucking accurate source. There's been studies done about this before concerning everything from nature-related articles to pharmacology articles, and it's up there with textbooks and the Encyclopedia Britannica for accuracy. The other thing about Wikipedia is that it's also a great place to find other sources (books, articles, journal publications, websites, etc.) which can be used as jumping off points for further research. Spencer advocates what he calls "peaceful ethnic cleansing", he wants to make the United States a "white homeland", and that's how simple it is. His views are totally incompatible with what the United States is supposed to stand for as a multicultural and multiracial society. He is a white supremacist and borderline neo-Nazi who uses historical Nazi slogans and quotes (in English of course) unironically at his rallies, hence the whole controversy over the "Hail Trump, Hail Victory!" incident that happened back in November. He doesn't come right out and call himself a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist, he instead underhandedly calls himself an "identitarian"-- which is the exact same bullshit that Creationists use to make themselves appear legitimate when they're not: "I'm not a Creationist, I just believe in Intelligent Design." I love how whenever Wikipedia has information that somebody disagrees with, it's automatically an unreliable source lol, even when what it's saying can easily be fact checked using search engines.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51704096][url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-strikes-nationalistic-tone-in-inaugural-speech-1484957527?tesla=y&mod=e2tw]Suprise![/url] Trump didn't write his own speech![/QUOTE] I called that on the first page of the thread about Trump writing his own speech. [editline]21st January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;51703093]Even the Chicago Tribune, Nytimes and huffpost articles? I mean this isn't just he said she said, they link to their sources at the bottom of each tag.[/QUOTE] Literally every single one on the map I've clicked on has been stupid (like putting notes about not wanting illegal aliens on cars) or have been totally unverified as being done by the right wing (like a swastika with no purpetrator).

If anyone literally thought that Trump was gonna right his own speech after telling nothing but lies throughout his whole campaign. I really don't know what to say besides you being gullible.

Wow, so people are automatically interpreting my criticism of wikipedia to a defense of this person for some reason? This dude probably is a piece of shit, but that's not a defense of wikipedia. They have proven that they can very well be agenda driven, use faulty sources, and overall try and paint their own picture.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705313]Wow, so people are automatically interpreting my criticism of wikipedia to a defense of this person for some reason? This dude probably is a piece of shit, but that's not a defense of wikipedia. They have proven that they can very well be agenda driven, use faulty sources, and overall try and paint their own picture.[/QUOTE] PERSON*

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51705310]If anyone literally thought that Trump was gonna right his own speech after telling nothing but lies throughout his whole campaign. I really don't know what to say besides you being gullible.[/QUOTE] Doesn't every president have speech writers?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705313]Wow, so people are automatically interpreting my criticism of wikipedia to a defense of this person for some reason? This dude probably is a piece of shit, but that's not a defense of wikipedia. They have proven that they can very well be agenda driven, use faulty sources, and overall try and paint their own picture.[/QUOTE] No, I'm assuming your criticism of Wikipedia is ignorance

[QUOTE=Smoot;51705327]Doesn't every president have speech writers?[/QUOTE] The difference being Trump said he would write the whole thing himself. So he shouldn't need someone to write it for him if he was writing it him self like he said.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705362]No, I'm assuming your criticism of Wikipedia is ignorance[/QUOTE] And I'm going to assume that you're just going to dismiss all the crap that was exposed about agenda driven editing during Gamergate, so there is no use arguing this.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705374]And I'm going to assume that you're just going to dismiss all the crap that was exposed about agenda driven editing during Gamergate, so there is no use arguing this.[/QUOTE] I don't know or care about gamergate-wikipedia relations. I care that there are citations all over the Wikipedia page I'm talking about that I can click and prove that what the page says, and I'm saying is true. I'm very thankful youre backing down though since you realize you're wrong.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705385]I don't know or care about gamergate-wikipedia relations. I care that there are citations all over the Wikipedia page I'm talking about that I can click and prove that what the page says, and I'm saying is true. I'm very thankful youre backing down though since you realize you're wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm not backing down and realizing I'm wrong, because I'm not wrong. I'm backing down because this argument will inevitably lead nowheres.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705397]I'm not backing down and realizing I'm wrong, because I'm not wrong. I'm backing down because this argument will inevitably lead nowheres.[/QUOTE] Sure thing.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705397]I'm not backing down and realizing I'm wrong, because I'm not wrong. I'm backing down because this argument will inevitably lead nowheres.[/QUOTE] Its OK to admit you didn't know wikipedia had citations to other sites so that it can back up what is listed on the page.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51705400]That happens so rarely that generally you need to assume it is neutral and well cited than assume it is biased.[/QUOTE] They broke that trust. I'll look at what they cite for information, but not take what they say at face value.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705313]Wow, so people are automatically interpreting my criticism of wikipedia to a defense of this person for some reason? This dude probably is a piece of shit, but that's not a defense of wikipedia. They have proven that they can very well be agenda driven, use faulty sources, and overall try and paint their own picture.[/QUOTE] So they're subject to the same problems that affect every other publication that involves human effort? Cool. Thanks for stating the obvious. There was no point to your original post. It was silly. Do you just not understand how Wikipedia works or... what exactly? It's an accurate source.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705408]They broke that trust. I'll look at what they cite for information, but not take what they say at face value.[/QUOTE] Then, it should be ok to use wikipedia as a source if you just look at the cited information then? So what's the problem then, to use wikipedia as a source of claims if you can quickly check yourself if the information is cited somewhere?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51705413]I dont know shit about GamerGate, not interested a bit. Can you provide examples of agenda driven editing on Wikipedia?[/QUOTE] If you dig deep enough into Wikipedia's editing community you'll see them quarreling a lot about this [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Notable_incidents[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies[/url] Anyways, the problem with false information and wikipedia is that the "look at the citation yourself" argument doesn't work simply because editors that publish this false information usually cite obscure books only available through paperback, and they cite the entire book instead of pages, and nobody is going to go through the trouble of proof checking it themselves by buying the book and reading through it in its entirety. Here's an example of an entire fake war that was up on Wikipedia for years: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Bicholim_conflict[/url] [quote]Fictitious war between the Portuguese rulers of Goa and the Maratha Empire which supposedly took place from mid-1640 to early 1641. Was assessed as a good article in September 2007, but failed a featured article nomination the next month as page numbers were not provided for references. ShelfSkewed (talk · contribs) investigated these references in 2012 and found that the main works cited do not actually exist.[/quote] Note that it only failed to be awarded Featured Article because there were no pages numbers. Apart from that, Wikipedia believed it to be [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles]'among the best articles they have to offer'[/url]

Doesn't everyone have an agenda? Why single out Wikipedia?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51705408]They broke that trust. I'll look at what they cite for information, but not take what they say at face value.[/QUOTE] Do you do that with Trump too when he says something

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51705450]Doesn't everyone have an agenda? Why single out Wikipedia?[/QUOTE] It's a free encyclopedia which is open to anybody and has community-driven content. Take that with the sensationalist claim that "anybody can edit it" (which is true, but you better back your edits up with a proper justification-- or else they'll be undone), and it's clear why they single it out: it's an easy, convenient target. You can attack it at surface value without actually bothering to look into anything about it. Because looking into it and verifying its accuracy would take work, and most people don't want to do that.

Wikipedia is a pretty good source for known historical people, events, etc. It's not so good for modern history or ongoing political issues.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51705516]Wikipedia is a pretty good source for known historical people, events, etc. It's not so good for modern history or ongoing political issues.[/QUOTE] Citing the actual words living people say is in fact, a pretty good source though

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51705446]Hypotethically, if Wikipedia did editorialize shit, it ould be desirable to simply post the citation link instead of wikipedia link[/QUOTE] I'm going to give you two articles on two different movements that were both decetralized. I want you to notice the difference in tone in both of them, even though they are very comparable. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter[/url] Wikipedia has a clear political bias to it. It can be used as a source library, assuming you read the sources themselves before using them, but Wikipedia's own "interpretations" are anything but neutral or objective.

[QUOTE=KillRay;51705535]Citing the actual words living people say is in fact, a pretty good source though[/QUOTE] Sometimes. It's very easy to take things out of context and selectively quote.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51705553]Sometimes. It's very easy to take things out of context.[/QUOTE] do you seriously think calling for ethnic cleansing can be taken out of context?