Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.
Wikipedia has been accused of raw bias in removing the entry at a time when interest in the company is at its peak, including the possibility of an indictment of Hunter Biden over his financial dealings. Rosemont Seneca is one of the most searched terms for those trying to understand the background on the Biden business operations.
Yet, an editor “AlexEng” wrote that the company was simply “not notable” — an absurd claim reminiscent of the recent claim by Atlantic Magazine’s writer Anne Applebaum that she did not cover the scandal because it simply was “not interesting.”
Alex wrote: “This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz.” That itself is an odd statement. It is mentioned as one of the key conduits of alleged influence peddling money. Alex added that “keeping it around” ran the risk of the page becoming “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.” It is that last comment that I found most concerning as part of this decision.
Any Wikipedia page could be a magnet for conspiracy theories, including the page on Hunter Biden himself. The fact is that this is a real company with real dealings that are the subject of a real criminal investigation. Indeed, various Republican members have already pledged to conduct investigations into this and other companies if they secure either house of Congress after the midterm elections.
So Wikipedia killed it just as a United States Attorney is drilling down on financial dealings of Hunter Biden, including money received from foreign sources through Rosemont Seneca.
The bias in the reference to the “conspiracy theories” is glaring. While some clearly misstate the facts of the Hunter Biden dealings (on both sides of the controversy), the central role of the company in these dealings is no conspiracy theory. I have long criticized Hunter Biden and his uncle for engaging in raw influence peddling — a practice long associated with the Biden family.
I have also been highly critical of how media and social media companies killed the Hunter Biden story. Much like Wikipedia’s explanation this week, they claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was merely conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation before the election. We are now approaching the midterm elections and suddenly Wikipedia is killing the page on this key company.
Republican senators claim that Hunter Biden was a partner in Rosemont Seneca with Chris Heinz, the stepson of future Secretary of State John Kerry, and their friend, Devon Archer. Archer was recently sent to prison for fraud in a matter that did not involve Hunter Biden.
In 2013, Rosemont Seneca entered into a business partnership with a Chinese investment fund called Bohai Capital. There are references in these transactions to Bohai Harvest RST. “RST” stood for “Rosemont Seneca Thornton,” a consortium of Rosemont Seneca and the Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm.
Hunter Biden’s counsel insists that he did not have an equity interest in RST. However, Rosemont Seneca and RST feature greatly in the controversial transactions with foreign figures. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reports that
“Prosecutors have focused in particular, those people said, on the payments from Burisma, which first flowed to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC before going on to Mr. Biden. Between 2014 and 2019, Hunter Biden held a Burisma board seat for which he was paid around $50,000 a month.”
The company has been tied to a series of payments to Hunter Biden from car purchases to cash transfers that are under investigation. Wikipedia does not (and should not) take sides in such allegations. Rather, it can serve as a conduit for those searching the company as part of a major and ongoing controversy.
Yet, “Alex” does not consider any of that “notable” and dismisses references to the company in a federal investigation as mere “conspiracy theories.”
Wikipedia was founded on lofty and even revolutionary goals of empowering the world with free access to sources of knowledge. The key minds behind Wikipedia saw the danger of bias creeping into this work and emphasized the need for strict neutrality.
Larry Sanger declared “Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.”
Likewise, Jimmy Wales insisted “A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.”
I have long been a fan of Wikipedia and its noble purpose. For that reason, I am saddened by this move which seems to reject the essential pledge of the company. Wikipedia’s editors have been increasingly accused of bias in such decisions. However, this move is particularly raw and inexplicable. Wikipedia will lose the trust of many if it goes down the path of companies like Twitter in allowing staff to use its platform for their own political agendas.
Wikipedia or WikiMedia should immediately reverse the decision of Alex on the Rosemont Seneca page.
The Left are gatekeepers for much of the information available to Americans. Google crafts a narrative with search algorithms. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and Instagram curate and censor information, in a coordinated propaganda plan crafted to benefit Democrats and harm Republicans. Wikipedia, Snopes, teachers, professors, school administrators…so many Democrats in control of what Americans can find.
We are weak fools if we permit this to continue unanswered.
Nothing is preventing you from becoming a Wikipedia editor and improving it.
Anonymous the Stupid, there is a hierarchy of editors, and there is control over the IP addresses that write for Wikipedia. Those who present difficulties for the left will have their IP addresses noted and potentially blocked. Entries can be blocked very quickly.
You are lying, but I can believe you are an editor for Wikipedia with a high ranking whose less intelligent opinions can take precedence over more intelligent ones. Wikipedia isn’t looking for intelligence or the truth. They are looking for compliance with a particular view of the world.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.
Anonymous the stupid, your insults don’t alter the truth. You are lying and there is a hierarchy of editors, and there is control over the IP addresses that write for Wikipedia. Those who present difficulties for the left will have their IP addresses noted and potentially blocked. Entries can be blocked very quickly.
Correct
“Nothing is preventing you from becoming a Wikipedia editor . . .”
And *that* is the fundamental problem with it.
Encyclopedia entries should be written by subject-matter experts, and overseen by *professional* editors — not by “Average Joe.”
Used to donate $ to Wikipedia. stopped a few years ago. They rely on it. Keep getting email requests to donate again. Perhaps $ talks
Could DNC or Clinton Foundation have donated $ for this censorship?
It can be easily explained without a conspiracy about the DNC and Clinton Foundation.
The company doesn’t meet WP’s standard for a company being notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
“The company doesn’t meet WP’s standard for a company being notable::”
You have a lot of problems. Honesty is one of the biggest. Read Turley’s column.
“Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.”
It doesn’t ring any bells that the decision could possibly be based on politics rather than neutrality. Nope, it wouldn’t ring any best to a dishonest person, but it would to an honest one.
No:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.
Like the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ before it, ‘activist’ has become a pejorative. The left poisons everything it touches.
Wiki stopped being neutral a long time ago. Even the founders say it can’t be trusted and many of the pages are controlled by activists. I found out first hand several months ago when I tried to add a reference to a recently published study on climate change and statements from scientists about the study to a page related to climate change. The page was “semi-protected” which meant I had to receive “talk page consensus” before the reference and statements were allowed. Of course the study or statements were not approved because it did not support the world is on fire narrative. Even after pointing out several studies similar to the one I referenced they quickly shut me down and blocked me from the page. Typical reaction from activists who don’t support freedom.
“The page was “semi-protected” which meant I had to receive “talk page consensus” before the reference and statements were allowed.”
But that’s not what semi-protected means.
“Semi-protected pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection
Since you aren’t accurate in your description of what “semi-protected” means, I have to wonder whether the rest of your description of what occurred is accurate.
You’re wrong. If you want to provide input on an article that is protected your input can be deleted and you must receive “talk page consensus” approval before it is allowed. It does not matter how old your account is or how many edits to Wiki you’ve made in the past. Your quote covers basic requirements to edit articles which I had achieved well in advance. According to Wiki “content decisions on Wikipedia are made through consensus….” If the page is protected and the editing overlords don’t like your input it’s not happening. I have to wonder if you understand Wiki culture.
I’m not wrong about what “semi-protected” means, nor have you provided a shred of evidence that what I wrote was wrong.
“If you want to provide input on an article that is protected your input can be deleted…”
Everyone’s edits can be deleted by other editors!!
That’s the nature of a wiki.
If you believe that someone has deleted something that should not have been deleted, then you can revert the deletion via the history page for that article. If there’s a dispute about the content, then the dispute should be taken to the article’s talk page to be resolved — if necessary with the help of a more experienced editor, and if further necessary, then you can request a formal dispute intervention.
“you must receive “talk page consensus” approval before it is allowed.”
Yes, if there’s disputed content, then it gets resolved through consensus when possible, and when that’s not possible, then you can request formal mediation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
“If the page is protected and the editing overlords don’t like your input it’s not happening.”
There are no “overlords,” and the issue you’re raising also exists for non-protected pages. It’s not about the protection level for the page.
Wikipedia is flawed in many ways, but figure out how to describe the actual problems accurately. Don’t attribute your issue to the page protection status when it’s actually an issue about disputed content.
You are approximately correct about the process,.
You are incorrect in pretending that alters the fact that Wikipedia is biased and correcting information is rarely possible.
Do you think that the consensus within the reichstag would have resulted in the end to Nazi myths about the jews ?
I find it very odd – the left is ranting about the Harms of social media – Obama is complaining about it.
Yet, control of social media is nearly entirely in the hands of people under 35 who by a wide margin lean significantly left.
While the majority of the country leans right.
The left is complaining that the institutions that it created to control thought are failing to control thought and need to be more controlling ?
You have clearly never tried to correct an error on Wikipedia – or tried to restore an article to the NPV that is supposed to be wikipedia’s standard
You clearly wish to pretend that your conjectures are knowledge, when you do not — and cannot — know what you claim.
Your conjectures are false.
For a discussion:
https://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia
Liar Ti T,
I **did** do it for myself, and I even linked to the results in my 2:25pm comment: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/24/a-magnet-for-conspiracy-theories-wikipedia-kills-entry-for-hunter-bidens-investment-company/comment-page-2/#comment-2177331
Of course, that won’t stop you from lying about me. You seem to like lying.
Thanks to this piece re: Wikipedia and its ‘alleged’ bias, I looked up Larry Sanger. And I think it’ll be a grand thing to do from now on to read Dr. Sanger’s blog.
He founded Wikipedia and left it behind in 2007 owing to his firm belief it was deviating from its original mission.
Some of Turley’s independent-minded readers might want to start reading Sanger’s output.
One more thought: On a list of ‘magnets’ for conspiracy theories, I think Joseph R. Biden himself belongs high up on that list.
It didn’t take long for the Comment section to devolve into a verbal ‘battle’ between the usual ‘warring factions.’
It’s been suggested on Professor Turley’s blog, I don’t recall how many times previously, that the folks who make up the warring factions can easily set up their own web-log or an equivalent. Anything wrong with that suggestion?
More of Turley’s paid deflection away from the Jan 6th REAL scandal. Tell us, Turley, what EXACTLY are Hunter Biden’s “crimes “? You’ve already admitted that influence peddling is NOT a crime, so what lies behind your rhetoric of “alleged “criminal conduct or the “possibility of an indictment, other than that paycheck you get from Fox?
NUTCHACHA says nothing about the brothas, sistas and various and sundry parasitic foreign invaders in every slum and ghetto who burn down federal buildings and inner cities, and shop by hoody and “smash and grab.”
______________
NUTCODE – NUT
Division 13, Political Acts
Chapter 7. Rules of Civil Dis- And/Or Obedience
13447. “Except after conversion to cultist communism, actual Americans shall not protest the theft of elections.”
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
– Henry David Thoreau
I just looked up Russia Hoax. The site shifts to Spygate. There is a lack of the use of the word hoax for a good reason. The content is one-sided and hides the truth. There is a lot of rambling where one wonders, what happened to the rest of the news?
One can assess the page’s validity by going to its citations. Place a conservative investigative reporter into the search bar (e.g., Sharyl Attkisson), and they will not be mentioned as a source. Specific names must be said, but the ones discussed frequently are inside a left-wing rag.
Anyone who believes Wikipedia to be neutral is either an incompetent or a leftist liar. Based on my comments, the latter is most likely true. Does anyone think he is trustworthy?
It’s “The Obama Coup D’etat in America.”
Obama being the figurehead and clearinghouse.
______________________________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“[Obama} wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_________________________________
Wikipedia is not necessarily to blame as almost anyone can manipulate an entry.
That’s the nature of the beast.
Communists are always more radical, extremist and active; they aren’t occupied with creating wealth, they are obsessed with and occupied confiscating Other People’s Money (OPM).
Search
Results 1 – 20 of 51
Advanced search:Sort by relevance
Search in:(Article)
Showing results for rosemont seneca. No results found for Rosemont Senaca.
The page “Rosemont Senaca” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
—-
Someone is promoting Wikipedia and making all sorts of comments disputing the findings of a lot of the blog members. Above is a copy of the results provided by Wikipedia on Rosemont Senaca. Only a deluded individual can believe the nonsense he spews. One can do a lot of other searches on political issues and find much the same text that rewrites history.
Wikipedia is not a valid independent ‘encyclopedia’. One can search the news and find evidence of its leftist observance.
Truth doesn’t seem to interest some on this blog.
You know, if you want to get accurate search results, you should spell the search terms correctly.
It’s Rosemont SenEca Partners, not “Rosemont SenAca.”
“Above is a copy of the results provided by Wikipedia on Rosemont Senaca.”
And if you’d simply spelled it correctly, you’d instead have gotten the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=rosemont+seneca&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1
Details, details. Perhaps you’re among the “some” when you claim “Truth doesn’t seem to interest some on this blog.”
The problem is that Wikipedia automatically gave results for the correct spelling and had no results for either. I used more than one spelling initially to make sure. This time I just used your spelling, and this is what I got.
Search
Results 1 – 20 of 51
Advanced search:Sort by relevance
Search in:(Article)
The page “Rosemont Seneca” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
Now you can tell your handlers at Wikipedia.
I also used your link above, and this is what I got.
Search
Results 1 – 20 of 51
Advanced search:Sort by relevance
Search in:(Article)
The page “Rosemont seneca” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
Thank you for doing the work and proving yourself a liar.
“Wikipedia … had no results for either”
That’s false. There are multiple results for Rosemont Seneca. I literally gave you a link to the search results, and you quoted the top of the page while ignoring the results.
At the top of the search results page, it says “You may create the page “Rosemont seneca”, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered,” and then it lists multiple other pages that include information about Rosemont Seneca, starting with “Hunter Biden (redirect from Rosemont Seneca Partners).”
Perhaps you didn’t mean what you said — “Wikipedia … had no results for either” — and you instead meant something much narrower, such as “Wikipedia does not have a page named ‘Rosemont Seneca.'” Do you understand the difference?
“Thank you for doing the work and proving yourself a liar.”
No, I didn’t lie. You apparently do not know the meaning of the word “results” and cannot be bothered to click on even the first search result. That you falsely accuse me of lying when the problem is with your own false description … reflects poorly on you.
There was no specific entry on Rosemont Seneca. It provided places where Rosemont Seneca is named. That is not the same as an article devoted to Rosemont Seneca. I think that will be surprising to many, but that is not important, for I also showed how the citations for a hot political topic all leaned left. The most powerful conservative voices were absent from the citation list at the end. With that revelation, your site is proven to be far left, and you are a liar.
One can ask co-founder Larry Sanger, and he states it clearly in his piece cited below.
Here are some examples:
“Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. Beyond that, a neutral article must fairly represent competing views on the figure by the major parties.”
Anonymous the Stupid will keep fighting, for he is like a Stalinist topped with a bit of Mao on a Castro sandwich. Take note, not in their communist leanings but in how they were willing to let “stupid” people die or kill them. That is people who disagreed with them and said so.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.
Should anyone be hurt that “a Stalinist topped with a bit of Mao on a Castro sandwich” who hates a “stupid woman” is insulting towards them? I think not.
Anonymous – you need to read the whole article I posted, they buried the lede.
Paul, I did read the entire thing, and I’m not going to try to read your mind to guess what you think the lede should have been.
There is nothing in your article that comes anywhere close to substantiating your claim that “the last study I saw on the accuracy of Wikipedia showed you had about a 50% chance of getting accurate information.” In fact, they made no references to a % accuracy, only to the absolute # of errors found.
Anonymous – this is not the study I was referring to. That one dealt with Congressional staffers changing their employer’s bios.
Paul, the only comment I saw from you here with a link to an article is: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/24/a-magnet-for-conspiracy-theories-wikipedia-kills-entry-for-hunter-bidens-investment-company/comment-page-1/#comment-2177329
If you have some other comment of yours in mind, link to it, or link directly to whatever article you’re asking me to read.
Anonymous – my health isn’t up to digging for it. I didn’t find it on the first try, so I gave you something, anyway.
“There was no specific entry on Rosemont Seneca.”
Duh.
There used to be one, and it was nominated for deletion in light of Wikipedia’s general policies about whether a company or organization merits its own page, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) . After discussion among interested editors, the consensus was that the page should be deleted, because the company is only noteworthy in relation to Hunter Biden; people can add content about the company to Hunter Biden’s page.
You’ve never explained why you believe that the company merits its own page.
“The most powerful conservative voices were absent from the citation list at the end.”
IF you believe that, THEN you should get off your duff and improve the page!!
“your site is proven to be far left”
It’s not my site, LOL.
“you are a liar.”
You haven’t quoted anything from me that’s false, much less a lie. Apparently you’re a troll who likes to pretend that people you disagree with are lying.
“There used to be one, and it was nominated for deletion in light of Wikipedia’s general policies about whether a company or organization merits its own page, such as:”
You have a lot of problems. Honesty is one of the biggest. Read Turley’s column.
“Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.”
It doesn’t ring any bells that the decision could possibly be based on politics rather than neutrality. Nope, it wouldn’t ring any best to a dishonest person, but it would to an honest one.
Yes, and it is all russian disinformation too.
Rosemont Seneca is significant. They have been in the news FAR more than many fortune 500 companies int he past few years.
How many people have heard of AmerisourceBergen #8 ?
Unless you live under a rock you have heard of Rosmont Seneca.
But then the lefts $hit does not stink – and if it does – they will wack off your nose so you can not smell it.
“A Magnet For Conspiracy Theories”
Hunter’s “business partner” visits Biden et al. in White House 19 times.
_______________________________________________________
“Hunter Biden’s closest business partner made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015, including a sitdown with then-Vice President Joe Biden in the West Wing.”
“Visitor logs from the White House of former President Barack Obama reviewed by The Post cast further doubt over Joe Biden’s claims that he knew nothing of his son’s dealings.
“Eric Schwerin met with Vice President Biden on November 17, 2010 in the West Wing, when he was the president of the since-dissolved investment fund Rosemont Seneca Partners.
“The logs also reveal that Schwerin met with various close aides of both Joe and Jill Biden at key moments in Hunter’s life when he was striking multi-million dollar deals in foreign countries, including China. Yet President Biden has long insisted he had no involvement in his son’s foreign affairs. “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” he said in 2019.
”’Not everyone gets to meet the Vice President of the United States in the White House. The press should be asking why Hunter Biden’s business associates — like Eric Schwerin — had that privilege and were given access to the Obama White House,’ said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin). ‘This is additional evidence that Joe Biden lied when he said he never discussed Hunter’s foreign business dealings. It’s well past time for the corporate media to demand the truth from Joe Biden. The corruption of Biden Inc. must be exposed.’”
– New York Post
Conspiracy Theory:
________________
I love Africans!
Elon Musk is my favorite.
He acts as a self-reliant African-American (there’s a twist) to licitly and constitutionally (unlike “Crazy Abe”) restore the freedom of speech, he fights Putin with Starlink technology, and he reveals the severe cognitive limitations of the otherwise buffoon, Bill Gates, who acts against electric cars to save the environment! What???
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Moving on …
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
(from making fun of Gates for shorting Tesla while claiming to support climate change action)
7:25 AM · Apr 24, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
“We Have a President that Shakes Hands with Air and Is Taking Orders from the Easter Bunny.”
– @real President Donald J. Trump
Umm, you’re naive if Wikipedia has been purely neutral all up until now. Lost my respect years ago. Where have you been … under a rock?
Conspiracy Theory:
Deportation is appropriate and legal, illegal deportation is certainly as legal as illegal immigration, and mass “asylum” is a grand fraud to dilute and destroy America by the direct and mortal enemies of America.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“A German court has ruled that deportation orders are valid even if migrants are unable to secure a sustainable livelihood in the long term after returning to their county of origin.”
“The ruling comes after a court case involving an Afghan migrant who failed to be given asylum in Germany but was banned from being deported by a court in Mannheim, which argued he would not be able to make a living in his home country due to the economic conditions in Afghanistan.”
– Chris Tomlinson
OT: For those who might not be totally aware of Florida’s happening, the House of the Mouse (Disneyworld) has lost its status as a sovereign kingdom. The title sovereign kingdom is not far from fact. It was exempted from taxes, was permitted to make its own laws acting outside of Florida’s domain and had good control over the court system since many Disney people lived in the area.
Ron DeSantis has ‘delisted’ the House of the Mouse as a kingdom, and Disneyworld now functions like every other area in Florida. It is a huge deal. The House of the Mouse was trying to indoctrinate Florida’s children and entered into the political realm of fighting with the legally elected leader of Florida, Ron DeSantis, who represents the people’s wishes. Time will tell, but I think Disney has lost the battle and a lot of money for the company and its stockholders.
Additionally, Ron DeSantis signed HB 7 into law. It bans “corporate wokeness” and Critical Race Theory from being used or taught in the workplace and public classrooms. Ron DeSantis recognizes the dreams of MLK, character over color, something unrecognized by the fascists leading America today.
A while ago, another bill was passed by Republicans. “Students and employees were “being pushed to adopt the personal or political viewpoints of employers, teachers or textbook authors,” The bill addresses “instruction and trainings that distort historical facts or push students to adopt the personal or political viewpoints of teachers or textbook authors.”
Florida is a leading state battling the excesses of the fascists in Washington, the media, academia, Hollywood and teacher’s unions. If we want to end the abuse of our children and their sexualization starting at age 3-4, we all need to lend Florida and Ron DeSantis our support, including financially.
Today, who will run for President in 2024 is unknown, but the left is terrified of Ron DeSantis and has been so for quite a while. That is why they have continuously attacked him. He is unflappable, bright while being ready and able to fight the left while protecting all people.
Conspiracy Theory:
Russian cyber warfare, not dissimilar to the Israeli Stuxnet mission to destroy the Iranian nuclear research centrifuges at Natanz, is responsible for the destruction of American food processing facilities; what’s next?
_____
When does America engage the enemy…the direct and mortal enemies of America, from Russia and China to Obama, BLM, Antifa, Earth Liberation Front, and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America, whose sole aspiration is to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Julieanna
@julieanngirly
Another fire/explosion at another food processing/distribution center in the USA.A few days ago it was Taylor Farms in Salinas, CA.☹️. Just now it was reported that Azure Standard in Dufur, Oregon has burned up.😒😒😐🧐. These food processing plants are mysteriously combusting.
5:44 PM · Apr 19, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
“an editor known only as “Alex” …”
That’s false too. His username is AlexEng, and here’s his user page, which is easily available to anyone simply by clicking on his signature in the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexEng
“Wikipedia should immediately reverse and disassociate itself from the decision of “Alex” on the Rosemont Seneca page.”
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia entries are created and edited by volunteer editors. Any editor can propose that a page be deleted according to standing WP policies, and then there is a discussion by any interested editors. More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
There is no separate WP entity that makes these decisions. There are only volunteer editors who jointly make decisions.
There IS a Wikimedia Foundation, but the WM Foundation is not Wikipedia, and the WM Foundation doesn’t intervene in decisions made by the volunteer WP editors.
If consensus is reached that a page should be removed, then a WP editor with administrative privileges removes it. As with all WP content, there is still a back-up of the content. There is no Wikipedia entity that can “reverse and disassociate itself from the decision of “Alex” on the Rosemont Seneca page,” because there is no separate WP entity, and the decision was not made by AlexEng. The decision was made by consensus of interested WP editors, and it will only be reversed by consensus among interested WP editors.
The question is: should it be reversed?
Nothing is stopping anyone here, including Turley, from becoming an editor and making an argument there for returning the page and improving it. But if you’re going to argue for that, you should start by understanding how WP works and that there is no separate Wikiepedia entity to make these decisions.
My guess: most people here are unwilling to become WP editors and improve the site or pitch in on discussions about which pages merit removal, merging with other pages, etc.
“The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” ”
No, the “site” didn’t claim that. A few specific editors claimed that. It’s inaccurate and counterproductive to confuse Wikipedia — a site — with individual Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia as a site has no control over the views of individual editors.
Ditto with the claim “this [RSP page] is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden,” which was posted by a single editor named AlexEng.
Here’s what the WP page looked like (the NY Post’s copy of the page is incomplete):
web.archive.org/web/20220326235206/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemont_Seneca_Partners
Rosemont Seneca Partners as a company is not notable except in relation to Hunter Biden, so there’s nothing unusual about removing the RSP page and shifting the content to the relevant section of Hunter Biden’s page. In fact, you can still search WP on Rosemont Seneca Partners, and what occurs is that you are taken to the relevant section of Hunter Biden’s page, with the notice “(Redirected from Rosemont Seneca Partners)”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist
Wikipedia pages get removed all the time for a variety of reasons, outlined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
If you object to an action taken by WP editors, the solution is: become an editor, and pitch in on improving WP instead of complaining from the sidelines.
The real question, which Turley does not address, is: why does he believe that RSP merits a separate WP page rather than discussion on Hunter Biden’s WP page?
Anonymous, lots of fancy words to get around the fact that Wikipedia eliminated any reference to Hunter Biden and his laptop. Are you telling us that an individual user on Wikipedia can take a post down? According to you I can just go onto Wikipedia and take down any post I don’t like. We are used to your twists but this one qualifies for the twister hall of fame.
“Anonymous, lots of fancy words to get around the fact that Wikipedia eliminated any reference to Hunter Biden and his laptop”
You’re deluded. There an extensive Wikipedia page about the laptop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy
Perhaps you were too lazy to look for it.
Perhaps you’re also willfully ignorant and have chosen not understand the difference between the laptop page and the Rosemont Seneca Partners page.
“Are you telling us that an individual user on Wikipedia can take a post down?”
No. Are you having difficulty understanding what I actually said?
“According to you I can just go onto Wikipedia and take down any post I don’t like.”
BS. You’re a troll who likes to lie.
Anonymous, Rosemont Senaca and the laptop go hand in hand. The complete understanding of their significance is not understood without knowledge of the two and how they are related. You found a link on Wikipedia to the Hunter laptop but you have not presented a link to Rosemont Senaca on Wikipedia. You say that I lie but lying by omission on your part is still a lie. The actions of Rosemont Senaca give proof to the information on the laptop. You just don’t want us to be able to connect the dots. Just because you don’t want us to connect the dots does not mean that we will not continue to do so. You write of the technicalities but you miss the obvious prohibition of information by Wikipedia. We see your little dance around the periphery for exactly what it is. It’s just the way you roll every day.
So you cannot bring yourself to admit that your claim “Wikipedia eliminated any reference to Hunter Biden and his laptop” was wildly false, and you were either too lazy to check before falsely claiming that or else you knowingly made the false claim (also known as lying). I don’t know whether you made the wildly false claim out of ignorance versus lying.
And you cannot bring yourself to admit that you lied when you falsely claimed “According to you I can just go onto Wikipedia and take down any post I don’t like,” and I **will** call that a lie rather than simply ignorant, because I said nothing of the sort. You chose to lie about me there.
“you have not presented a link to Rosemont Senaca on Wikipedia”
I pointed out in my 12:44pm comment that “you can still search WP on Rosemont Seneca Partners, and what occurs is that you are taken to the relevant section of Hunter Biden’s page, with the notice “(Redirected from Rosemont Seneca Partners)”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden#Investor_and_lobbyist ” One can also easily find other pages that mention Rosemont Seneca Partners.
You want there to be a Rosemont Seneca Partners page on WP? Nothing is stopping you from becoming a WP editor and arguing that it should be put back up, instead of whining about it here.
“lying by omission on your part is still a lie”
I didn’t lie by omission, though that won’t stop you from lying about me in your claim there.
“you miss the obvious prohibition of information by Wikipedia”
No, YOU miss the fact that information can and does exist on other WP pages. And if you weren’t so lazy, if you believed that there was some content on the Rosemont Seneca Partners page that should be added to Hunter Biden’s page, and/or to the laptop page, and/or to some other page, you’d add it instead of just whining about it here.
My oh my Anonymous one would think that a fair person such as yourself would be asking that the page on Wikipedia concerning Rosemont Senaca should be put back in place. Why should I write about Rosemont Senaca on Wikipedia when it has all ready been done? If I did write about Rosemont Senaca on Wikipedia what are the odds that my post would be approved when information on Rosemont Senaca has already been disapproved? Why shouldn’t a fair person like yourself be calling for the reinstatement of the Rosemont Senaca page? After all you are a fair person. Right?
“If I did write about Rosemont Senaca [sic] on Wikipedia what are the odds that my post would be approved ”
As I said, if you weren’t so lazy, if you believed that there was some content on the Rosemont Seneca Partners page that should be added to Hunter Biden’s page, and/or to the laptop page, and/or to some other page, you’d add it instead of just whining about it here.
If you write about Rosemont Seneca Partners on existing pages, your additions do not have to be approved!
You could also write whatever information you want about Rosemont Seneca Partners on your WP user page.
If you want to recreate the separate *page* (not just “information”) for Rosemont Seneca Partners, then you’d have to make an argument to other editors about why you believe that it merits its own page.
Instead, you lie that “information on Rosemont Senaca has already been disapproved,” confusing “information on Rosemont Senaca [sic]” (which exists) with a separate page about the organized (which has been removed after a consensus was reached among interested editors).
“Why shouldn’t a fair person like yourself be calling for the reinstatement of the Rosemont Senaca [sic] page? ”
You haven’t presented evidence that it merits a separate page, and you’re essentially saying that you want me to do something you’re too lazy to do for yourself. Why are you so lazy?
Anonymous, so you say that you can search the Washington Post and find an article on Rosemont Senaca. So please explain how finding such an article in the Post has anything to do about wether you can’t find information about Rosemont Senaca on Wikipedia. Duh.
“Anonymous, so you say that you can search the Washington Post and find an article on Rosemont Senaca.”
You’re deluded.
I did not say that about the Washington Post. Perhaps you’re confusing WP (Wikipedia) and WaPo (Washington Post). You should also learn to spell Rosemont Seneca.
Anonymous, while we are on the subject of the Hunter laptop we should recall that you said it was just Russian disinformation. In your Wikipedia link even the far left magazine Vox said the emails on the laptop were authentic. Vox said that information on the laptop that was exposed by Giuliani was authentic. Vox agreeing with Guiliani on the authenticity of the laptop. The shame must have hurt but you feel no such shame. Did you think that we would so easily forget. I know your answer will be TROLLL!!!. Weak.
“recall that you said it was just Russian disinformation.”
I didn’t. Though you can lie and allege that I did, without providing a shred of evidence to substantiate your allegation.
Anonymous everyone that comes to this blog knows that you have loyally presented every talking point of the left for months on end. So as much as you don’t want us to we remember.
Ti T, those who pay attention knows that you like to make allegations that you’re too lazy to back up with evidence.
It seems insults are the only thing left for this anonymous libtard. He’s been wrong on almost everything.
Anonymous, I read your link to the Washington Post giving all the excuses as to why they thought the Hunter Laptop was Russian disinformation and why they thought that RussiaGate was real. Unbeknownst to the Washington Post there is such a thing as reporting. Other news outlets found out that the lies parading as facts were coming from the Democratic Party. The Post knew that those providing the information had a dog in the fight. The Post refused to ask the questions and just wrote what they were told. Now they are trying to say “Look at all the information. How could we have come to any other conclusion.” It’s simple. They got their information from the Clinton Campaign and they published it because they wanted you to think it was true. A news organization is supposed to operate from a skeptical viewpoint and is supposed to ask questions to verify the information they receive. Now the Post offers their lame excuse in order to rescue what’s left of their reputation. To little to late. We should not forget what they put the country through in November. Temptation to voice an expletive.
Anonymous, on March 19 at 6:08 you posted a link that justifies the treating of the Hunter laptop as Russian disinformation. You say you have never supported the idea that the laptop was a Russian plot. Now that it is found out that the laptop is authentic you disavow that you ever said that it was authentic. Here is the link that you yourself supplied. Vox magazine says that Guliani was right and you continue to present information saying that because the laptop information came from Guliani it must not be reliable information. Here is the link that you provided on March https://web.archive.org/web/20220319020206/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/18/forgotten-and-ignored-context-emergence-hunter-biden-laptop-story/.
Anonymous, if you go to Wikipedia and type in Rosemont Seneca this is what you will find. “ Showing results for rosemont seneca No results found for Rosemont senaca.” If you weren’t so lazy you could have done this for yourself.
My reply was decoupled: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/24/a-magnet-for-conspiracy-theories-wikipedia-kills-entry-for-hunter-bidens-investment-company/comment-page-2/#comment-2177358
“Anonymous, on March 19 at 6:08 you posted a link that justifies the treating of the Hunter laptop as Russian disinformation.”
What I wrote was “Here’s a good discussion of the timeline re: the laptop and Giuliani’s involvement in all of this” (https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/19/white-house-mum-on-hunter-biden-story-as-doj-acquires-additional-financial-records/comment-page-2/#comment-2167536). I said nothing there about “disinformation.”
Thanks for showing that you were lying when you alleged that I’d “said it was just Russian disinformation.”
“Vox magazine says that Guliani was right”
Yet another allegation where you’re too lazy to quote what the author actually said. You are apparently too lazy to simply click on a link in the WP references and then do a simple text search on “Giuliani” to test your conjecture. You are a lazy, lazy person.
Anonymous, I recommend a thorough reading of the link you provided. It is an excuse by the Washington Post for why they published what they published. It’s the same excuse that you now provide for what you have said in the past. Say the words straight out. RussiaGate was a hoax provided by the Democratic Party. James Clapper of the CIA said he believed that RussiaGate was concocted by Hillary Clinton to distract from here illegal server. Please tell us that you agree with James Clapper. C’mon C’mon C’mon.
Please tell us that someday you’ll decide to stop trolling. C’mon C’mon C’mon.