What is the most biased historical Wikipedia article currently in existence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

>>14970912 (OP)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

>>14970912 (OP)

Honestly wikipedia is almost useless for reading about historical events unless you just want to know the dates and participants in some war or something.

i have never seen a single example of wikipedia bias ever

i hate the zog as much as anyone but wikipedia isn't stupid enough to sink to that level

even contentious stuff like israel/palestine

is deliberately covered in an objective way

Jews there call 4chan a shithole.

>The site has been described as a hub of Internet subculture, its community being influential in the formation and popularization of prominent Internet memes, such as lolcats, Rickrolling, rage comics, wojaks, Pepe the Frog, as well as hacktivist and political movements, such as Anonymous and the alt-right. 

this reads like it hasn't been updated in 10 years, i've a good mind to fire teh lazars lolololololol

>>14970912 (OP)

anything about the balkans.

It's not wrong though.

>>14970912 (OP)

These nonces still didn't update the nuclear weapons pages to include Belarus on the list of nuclear armed states.

They're sitting on their hands.

>>14970912 (OP)

A while ago the official wiki article for Russia described them literally as "a fascist state", but I think they've removed that now.

fpbp

>doesn't charge the Jews rent for his headspace

How philosemitic of you.

The idiots think Russia stopped being socialist in 1991.



Although Russia dropped the full RSFSR name then, they were still the Soviet legal system until the October 1993 Constitutional Crisis.



They should handle it like DR of Afghanistan is shown in this picture for example.

Please don't poke the chuds sir

How do they cope with Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile's writings being banned in Russia?

The "government" section used to be literally to describe the government and nothing else (unitary vs confederational, parliamentary vs presidential, etcetera) but then they started adding "dictatorship" to all the no-no states, so it's less about the actual facts of governance and more about which states you're supposed to like and which states you're not supposed to like.



Curiously, actual non-democratic institutions you're supposed to like aren't described as "dictatorships", for example the EU is described as "directorial", a hilarious doublethink. So actual elected governments are dictatorships but a bonafide legal undemocratic non-voted system is merely "directorial"

>>14970912 (OP)

list of jewish expulsions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Franklin Credit Union Scandal

You think this Germoid's wife was bouncing on commie cock?

Seek help. Your parents are worried.

Anything about Balkan history. cf.



>1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War

>Bulgarian Wikipedia article

>Bulgaria won

>Serbian Wikipedia article

>Serbia won

>English Wikipedia article

>Results: Inconclusive. Status quo antebellum

>>14970912 (OP)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=0&amp;type=edit&amp;level=extendedconfirmed&amp;size-mode=min&amp;size=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit-a-thon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_editsyoutube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY [Embed]

>constantly thinks about money and how to profit off others

You thought you were smart there, right, foreskin muncher?



You know historians check the articles too, especially when there is an input with a cited source to their work.



/pol/ retards always screech how wikiepedia is full of biased history articles, but they cant find a single article. It doesnt make anyone take you any more seriously.



Wikipedia should never be used as a source in academic studies, but for casual debates its a good reference for a quick overview of the historic topic.

>>14970912 (OP)

anything religious like biblical figures or texts uses atheist sources for a majority of the article
