You could correct them but the admins responsible for the slant will just revert them or debate you until you give up.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashe...

It all boils down to whatever adjectives you can use or not. You can say some politician is a racist in the first paragraphs of their Wikipedia article, but you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world. That implies a bias, because one thing is seen by the editors as damning enough to warrant a mention whilst the other isn’t, despite both things being considered somewhat equally bad by different sides of the political aisle.

(I know the answers to this comment will be “oh but it’s not the same…”. Spare me. You missed the point of my comment.)

> you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world.

You can absolutely say that, if it's true. As it stands, I don't know of country "filled with immigrants", so it's possible your edits are getting revoked for being incendiary hyperbole.

I'm also not aware of any politician described as racist in the first paragraph of their article. Can you indicate who you have in mind?

More realistically, controversies about racism and immigration are likely to be mentioned in a section of the given article, not in the first paragraph. That strikes me as a very fair way to handle it, which conveniently disarms accusations of bias against Wikipedia.

“Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. Does it need to be 100% immigrants to count as “filled”? 50%? 25%?

Canadian residents, for example, as of 2021 [1], were 23% foreign-born, and further 2.5% non-permanent residents. In the five year period from 2016 to 2021, the number of foreign-born Canadians increased by 18% alone, which to me is significant growth. The number of non-permanent residents doubled from 2016 to 2021, and tripled again by July 2024 [2]. The share of third-generation+ Canadians, defined as those born in Canada to parents born in Canada, was 56% in 2021 [1]. When the 2026 census data is released next year, it’s estimated that number could be as low as 52%.

[1] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fo... [2] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/91-215-x2024001...

> “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term.

An encyclopedia is no place for subjectivity. [1]

> Canadian residents,

I don't care. I'm not here to discuss immigration. We're talking about Wikipedia and its standards. You can like immigration or be against it, but it's not Wikipedia's job to allow you to express your opinion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

Absolutely. I usually see this type of posts on twitter where people are simply mad that they can't shit on imigrants like that in there.

Language as a whole is subjective.

This feels rather hand wavy and reductive. The bar isn’t “Wikipedia is completely unbiased and objective” - that’s a fool’s errand, it can’t be done. But we still strive to account for biases and reach for objectivity as best we can, and there are situations where language (with its subjectivity taken into due consideration) and claims clearly are not an attempt at that.

Correct. All language is subjective, but not all language is equally subjective.

This just reads to me like you have an ax to grind and are mad Wikipedia won’t give you the surface for it.

Those aren’t the same thing. I’m saying that and I did not miss the point of your comment. You can’t just declare the opposite opinion invalid like that