Skip to comments.Media bias: Wikipedia has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information about how hunting...
Posted on 07/02/2018 1:03:36 PM PDT by grundle
Wikipedia has repeatedly removed the following reliably sourced information from its Trophy hunting article. (The deletion history can be seen here, here, here, and here.)
In 2015, a Texas hunter who had won an auction paid $350,000 for legal permission to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. The Washington Post wrote the following about the particular animal that was chosen for this kill: “The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.” The money was used to fund conservation efforts. Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism had approved of the kill. The meat was eaten by residents of a nearby village.
In 2017, a hunter paid $35,000 for permission to kill one bongo at a ranch in Texas. The ranch’s manager said this was enough money to feed the ranch’s approximately 30 remaining bongos for an entire year.
In 2017, wildlife experts said the ranches in Texas had more blackbuck antelope than their native country of India.
In 2018, a hunter from Kentucky legally killed an adult male giraffe in South Africa. Because this particular male was too old to breed, and because it had previously killed three younger adult males who were capable of breeding, this particular kill caused the population to get bigger, not smaller.
The above content is notable, relevant, and reliably sourced. There is no legitimate reason to not include it in the article.
So put it back.
This shows the bias in Wikipedia toward legal hunting.
Remember a few years ago, when the media pushed the Cecil the Lion story???? Jimmy Kimmel cried about it.
Cecil was allegedly some national icon of Zimbabwe. Turned out that nobody in Zimbabwe had heard of Cecil. It also turned out the situation is more complex than the media told us. It turned out that these legal safari hunting events help support many people in sub-Saharan Africa, and actually help with the conservation of species, as I recall.
Point is, the media push certain stories and leave out important context and details, as they try to get a certain reaction to a story.
Wikipedia is incredibly leftist. I was an editor there for about 2 months, then they banned me. All I did was post sourced temperature graphs which showed there has been no global warming for 20 years.
I also wanted to repost a topic, “Global Warming,” which got merged into “Climate Change.” Two obviously seperate subjects. Was banned before I could even start.
Wikipedia is biased? GASP! Tell me it isn’t so!
In other breaking news, fire is hot and water is wet.
One “editor” (censor for the Wikipedia State thought control dictatorship) deleted or edited more than 12,000 separate entries on Climate Change and the sekf-called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And that was just one censor of many.
The CIA, the agency that invented the term “conspiracy theory” is working 24-7 to make sure Wikipedia debunks any and all independent analysis on just about anything.
Long ago I learned this of wikipedia. My first experience of making an edit suggestion was the LAST time I tried.
When I was writing the early drafts of my books, I would occasionally go there to see if any pertinent references were sourced; I never found a single cross-linked reference which was usable.
I refuse to ever cite wiki for anything and the only citation I’ve ever made of it was for the purpose of highlighting its hypocrisy.
I don’t see the point of arguing about what libs are doing at a lib site. I’m refuse to be stressing over the likes of them and mock others for using wiki and snopes alike, to state nothing of those who watch 3-5 letter news.
If they want to circle-jerk to reinforce their own biases, have at it. But no child of mine would ever be permitted to read their BS: It’s lazy & unforgivable to not have a Boolean search ability.
Some years back, Congress and Obama removed the restriction the CIA had on propagandizing on American soil.
Looks like they went from 0 - 60, full-throttle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.