The disclaimer is absolutely appropriate. 1) Sources that are demonstrably left-wing and biased destroy the neutrality of the article. 2) The majority of sources cited for the one-sided claims are from the same sources. A wider variety of sources is needed to substantiate the "weasel wording" and yellow journalism. 3) Please read/listen to the article. The presence of bias is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia's existence. It destroys the trust and credibility of the source. 4) Not sure how you're not grasping the obvious. In a show about bias and fact-checking credibility wouldn't you interview the people involved? 5) Again, the obvious. Left-leaning destroys the neutrality you are claiming to be seeking. 6) The Washington Post being owned by Jeff Bezos is relevant. In fact, it is a massive conflict of interest and casts a large shadow of doubt upon the credibility of the source. If the entire article was substantiated by quotes from the National Enquirer would you take it seriously?
Credibility matters. Neutrality matters. If Wikiedpedia is going to be more than a propaganda site for group-think when it comes to politics and the major issues of our time, it must be a site for facts and a variety of opinions. This article is remarkably one-sided in tone and remarkably unsubstantiated by a variety of sources. The disclaimers have a place. In fact, the lack of substantiation from other credible sources demand demand them at the least. Let people do the research and make up their own minds, rather than providing only one side of the issue. The carelessly attached labels and weasel words are unacceptable if Wikipedia wishes to stay true to its founding principles.
Start a discussion with Judgiebudgie
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Judgiebudgie. What you say here will be public for others to see.
