Saturday, July 17, 2021

The Word for It is “Propaganda”: wikipedia Co-Founder Says Website Has Morphed into Playground for Rich and Powerful Manipulators

By R.C.
Fri, Jul 16, 2021 3:12 p.m.
Crossposted at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

RT World News

"A Visit to wikipedia":

wikipedia and Race: The Most Thorough Exposé You’ll Ever Read on The Pretend Encyclopedia

Posted by Nicholas at 3:55 P.M.

Friday, March 5, 2021

Nadine Gordimer’s Racism, and Wikipedia’s Attempt to Cover It Up

By Nicholas Stix

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

Nadine Gordimer’s Racism, and Wikipedia’s Attempt to Cover It Up


Nadine Gordimer: Portrait of the Racist as “Anti-Racist”

[Previously, by this writer: “Wikipedia and Race.”]

By Nicholas Stix

Nadine Gordimer (1923-2014) leveraged a life devoted to promoting murderous racism into worldwide acclaim, wealth, and awards, including the Nobel Prize for Literature. Her trick: redefining racism as “anti-racism,” or in her case, “anti-apartheid.”

The following passages on Gordimer’s anti-Afrikaner (anti-white) racism are from the talk page accompanying her entry at The Pretend Encyclopedia, aka Wikipedia.

“The [De Beer = Afrikaans] child will sink, she will drown if she lets go of her mother, yet her clinging is flirtatious, she tries to make him look at her so that she may at once hide her head against the mother’s thigh. She’s a beautiful child as their children often are — where do they get them from? — and she’ll grow up — what do they do to them? — the same sort of vacant turnip as the mother ... To go into those women must be like using the fleshy succulent plants men in the Foreign Legion have to resort to.” -- (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

“The article misses out on her Anti-Afrikaner racism i.e. equating Afrikaner women to plants. -- (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)”

• “The citation appears to be an "open letter" to Gordimer, in at least a somewhat satirical vein; we should take the comment from User: in a similar vein, I suspect. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)”

Laurie Quilter is one of the many racist Wikithugs who enforce the party line, and who has for years devoted herself to ensuring that the entry on Gordimer is as dishonest as possible. The passage in question was not from an “open letter” to Gordimer, it was Gordimer’s words, and it was not in a satirical vein, any more than the comment from was.

The passage was dialogue from a Gordimer novel, The Conservationist, but the character who made the dehumanizingly anti-Afrikaner remarks was simply a ventriloquist’s dummy for Gordimer’s own racism.

It has become fashionable, in recent years, to claim that remarks that have since been denounced were “satirical.” In such contexts, the word “satirical” makes no sense. Indeed, a racial socialist like Laurie Quilter has no sense whatsoever of the concept of “satire,” and I’m losing my own sense of it. Quilter simply made up her lie about an “open letter” out of whole cloth. The anonymous commenter had provided the link to Gordimer’s racist novel, and Quilter knew she was lying. The stupidity of her lie suggests that Quilter is one of those pathological liars who lie all the time, in matters big and small, no matter how obvious the lie. (I also happen to unfortunately be familiar with Laurie Quilter’s penchant for lying, not to mention her racism.)

Wikipedia/TPE has a history of sending truthful edits of entries down the memory hole. It used to be that one could learn much of the censored truth, by reading the “talk/discussion” pages that accompany each article. However, during the past couple of years, its racial socialist enforcers have become so rabid that they even send inconvenient truths from the talk pages, down the memory hole. And those truths are lost forever, as they do not show up in the talk pages’ “revision history”—virtually nothing does. Check out this revision history of the talk page for Gordimer, for instance, which was archived by … Laurie Quilter.

Posted by

Monday, February 22, 2021

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Truth Visits the Wikipedia Page, Gets Thrown Out on Its Edit by WikiThugs

By Nicholas Stix
September 13, 2019
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored/VDARE

I don’t get out much these days, if I don’t have to. I have to keep my babies rolling in steaks, TP, and soap, so that necessitates some trips to the Store Formerly Known as Waldbaum’s, and to the national chain drug store which has been swallowed up by another national chain drug store. Otherwise, I have my books and movies and music and TV and the Internet, and every few days, UPS or the USPS brings new books, movies, and music.

However, Peter Brimelow asked that I voyage to a dangerous place. I call it The Pretend Encyclopedia (TPE); others call it Wikipedia.

Actually, I had gone there on my own, but I only do that a few times a year, if I can help it. I get fed up with this or that outrage by the communists running the joint, and make a modest correction, which one of them immediately “reverts.”

Their reversions always constitute vandalism, but they would call me a “vandal.” They are vandals, because they enforce lies and racism, and automatically revert (and frequently ban) anyone who seeks to tell the truth, or expose and fight racism.

On paper, the place has a million “policies and guidelines”: Be bold; AGF (Assume good faith); NPOV (Neutral point of view); PA (No personal attacks); BLP (Biographies of living persons); CIV Neutral Point of View, etc., but in practice, it has none. If you are part of the ruling, communist clique, you may violate the rules with impunity, while making false charges against those on TPE’s Enemies List. Thus does TPE increasingly resemble institutions such as the law, the press, and the antiversity in today’s world of anarcho-tyranny.

Over the past two months, I had been venturing down Pretend’s mean, virtual streets more than usual, due to the death of John Tanton (1934-2019), the greatest American of his generation.

Dr. Tanton, a small-town Michigan opthalmologist, founded America’s modern immigration reform movement, when he saw that the environment and America were bound to be destroyed by mass, Third-World immigration. Admirers called him the “Johnny Appleseed” of the immigration reform movement, due to his practice of donating seed money to found organizations (the Federation for American Immigration Reform, U.S., Inc., U.S. English, The Social Contract Press, Pro English, the Center for Immigration Studies) that then flourished on their own. Enemies were, well, less charitable. “The Puppeteer.” “White nationalist.” You get the idea.

At TPE Dr. Tanton’s page, like that of, has in recent years been turned into an attack page based on slanders from the racist, scandal-plagued, frequently debunked SPLC. However, at TPE, the SPLC, whose publications are all glorified fund-raising letters, is treated as if it were the gold standard of journalism, scholarship, and morality.

(On August 27, one of the WikiThugs, Bradv, put Dr. Tanton’s page under “protection”: “Protected ‘John Tanton’: Persistent disruptive editing” That was in response to yours truly having made three modest edits, removing its inflammatory language. Now, only trusted liars, traitors, and racists have access to edit the page.)

That page was originally written by old immigration hand Fred Elbel, the scholar and blogger who maintains CAIRCO, the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, but it does not at all resemble the original version, and there’s nothing Fred can do about it.

You’d never know, to read TPE, that the SPLC was completely disgraced earlier this year. Then again, you wouldn’t know it, to read the New York Times, either.

“VDARE is an American website focused on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right.”

That’s TPE’s lead for its entry on (as I write). And they expect people to treat it like an encyclopedia article!

Paragraph two opens,

“The group has been described as white supremacist.” page has virtually nothing about the actual writings published at VDARE. It consists of libels published about VDARE by the racist, treason site, the SPLC. Just try filling up the SPLC’s TPE page with criticisms of its operations, even though The Social Contract (founded and, for many years, published by John Tanton) published an issue last year that is the equivalent of a 400-page book devoted to exposés of the SPLC.

Not that people (including yours truly) haven’t sought to make TPE’s page actually be about, but the Wikithugs always immediately revert any honest, decent changes. (They get pings, whenever a page they own gets edited, or whenever anyone on their Enemies List edits something.)

Once or twice a year, I would make modest corrections, e.g., removing the instances of “white supremacist,” “white nationalist,” and “anti-immigrant/immigration,” and replacing the latter with “immigration reform.”

Sometimes, less than a minute would pass, before one of the racist Reds would revert me.

The Wikithugs are so contemptuous of everything a real encyclopedia stands for that they even got basic facts wrong, and maintained their wrongness, e.g., asserting for years that Peter Brimelow worked at Fortune, rather than Forbes.

On September 5, just for the record, I undertook a more ambitious correction, even though I knew it would quickly be struck down. Its lead goes,

VDARE is an American Webzine focused on patriotic immigration reform. It was established on Christmas Eve, 1999, by Editor-Publisher Peter Brimelow….

In my explanation of my edit, I wrote, “BLP, Undue [weight], NPOV… is there a WP rule this entry didn’t break? I don’t know if this is obscene, or a parody.”

“Is Wikipedia censored?
“Wikipedia uses the minimum of censorship. Generally, only gratuitous explicit (pornographic) images are removed.”

Corrected version: Wikipedia uses a maximum of constant censorship, and is lousy with pornography, though the majority of the latter is tucked away on Wikimedia Commons.

Currently, TPE is the world’s fifth most popular Website. Students and media operatives use it to plagiarize its entries, corporate mischief-makers and their subcontractors use it to enhance their companies and harm their rivals, and it functions as a libel factory for racist organizations like the SPLC and ADL, and TPE’s Red Brigades.

I have some ideas for solutions to the problem of TPE, but can’t discuss them at VDARE, because laws.  


Thursday, July 18, 2013

Wikipedia and the Knoxville Horror: Pretend Encyclopedia Thread Nazis are So Rabid That After Six Years, They Even Censor the “Discussion” Page, to Ensure That Readers Learn as Little as Possible about Racist Atrocity!


War crime victims Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom


The five known war criminals responsible for the violation and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. This was the only picture of the five handy. Two additional black rapist-killers were identified by DNA in semen they had left in Channon Christian's panties, but have yet to be named. Whoever put together this photo display did no research on the case, as attested to by his repeating the Internet hoax perpetrated by neo-Nazi/FBI informant Hal Turner, according to which the victims were sexually mutilated.


[See also, by N.S.: “Wikipedia on Race: ‘World’s biggest encylopedia’ serves up propaganda” (American Renaissance exposé)]

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Two of the many thread Nazis who have for years ensured that the Knoxville Horror entry presents as little of the truth as possible, Evanh2008 and Dougweller, are now even censoring the entry’s “talk” page, which is not kosher, according to Wikipedia. Then again, the wikithugs always violate their own rules. Rules are for the little people!

The censored section follows:

If you want to learn the truth about this racial hate crime, you’re at the wrong place

For real coverage of this atrocity, go to, and type “Knoxville Horror” in the search box. Not only will you find photographs of the victims and perps [which have been repeatedly censored at Wikipedia], respectively, but you’ll find exhaustive coverage of the crime, ensuing trials and retrials, and judicial scandals, enough to fill a book or two. And you’ll be spared Wikipedia’s censorship, distortions, and outright lies. (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

* * *

[The following was not at Wikipedia.]

On the Knoxville Horror, All of It Banned at The Pretend Encyclopedia!:

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Cover-Up” (first national report published anywhere, for American Renaissance);

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Media Blackout” (biggest national report, also for American Renaissance);

“The Knoxville Horror: Crime, Race, the Media, and ‘Anti-Racism’” (first report for VDARE);

“De-Policing and the Knoxville Horror”;

“Conclusion of First Knoxville Horror Trial Shows Legal System Under Stress”;

“Knoxville Horror Prosecutions Spinning Out of Control?”;

“Diversity is Strength! It's also… Minority Jury Nullification”;

“One Knoxville Horror Perp Sentenced to Death—But the Time-Bomb is Ticking”;

“Vanessa Coleman Sentenced to 53 Years in Prison for Facilitating the Knoxville Horror Gang-Rape-Torture-Murders (Revised and Expanded)”; and

“The Knoxville Horror (Yet Again): George Thomas Conviction Shows Justice Expensive, Agonizing, Grudging in Multicultural America.”

John Derbyshire and Kevin Myers on the Myth That Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia


[See also, by N.S.: “Wikipedia on Race: ‘World’s biggest encylopedia’ serves up propaganda” (American Renaissance exposé)]

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Gossipedia By John Derbyshire July 27, 2009 Taki’s Magazine


That's Wikipedia for you. They can say what they like about you, employing any level of sub-literacy for the purpose, and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, even if you are patient and computer-literate enough to master their mark-up language. I had heard this, but just hadn't believed they are really so brazen.

I had heard it from, amongst others, Irish journalist Kevin Myers, who, at the slightest prompting, will give you a passionate forty-five minute harangue on the evils of Wikipedia.

There's a Myers column on the topic here, from which:

So who are the people who founded and run Wikipedia? I don't know, and nor have I any foolproof way of finding out, because the only way of doing so is by consulting Wikipedia itself: a hole-in-bucket solution to a hole-in-my-bucket problem …And so — do these wretched Wikipedia people ever lie awake worrying at the damage that the evil or the impressionable might inflict upon those who have been maligned in their uncontrolled and filthy internet gossip-shop, whose very power derives from the complete fiction that it is an "encyclopedia"?

I doubt it extremely: for of all the lies of our time, Wikipedia is surely the greatest.

[Read the whole thing here.]

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

The George Zimmerman Trial : Wikipedia’s Thread Nazis are Working to Completely Confuse Readers About Rachel Jeantel's Testimony!

Posted by Nicholas Stix


Nowhere in the entry "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," is Rachel Jeantel named; instead her identity is hidden behind "Witness 8," in order to leave readers in the dark. Various editors have repeatedly entered her name, only to have the thread Nazis censor it. And when the entry quotes Jeantel's testimony that Martin told her he was being followed by a "crazy-ass cracker," the latter statement is in a separate, one-sentence section, "Allegations against Martin."


Witness 8

On March 20, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump revealed that Martin had been on the phone with a friend moments before he was shot.[167][168] During an ABC News exclusive report, Crump allowed portions of his recorded interview with Martin's friend to be aired. She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.[167][168][169] The friend said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend.[168] She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him.[170] Crump stated that he would turn the information over to the Justice Department because "the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department to have anything to do with the investigation."[167] Martin's friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy," watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.[168] Martin's friend told prosecutors that she heard words like "get off, get off," right before she lost contact with Martin.[168]

On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that witness 8 had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral.[171][172][173]

Crump had refused to disclose the identity of Witness 8, stating that she was only 16, a minor at the time of the shooting, and asked the media to respect her privacy.[174] It was subsequently revealed that she was actually 18 at the time when she said she was on the phone with Martin.[175] According to the defense, her actual age had been edited out of previously released disclosures.[176] Crump has denied intentionally giving any misleading statements about her age.[177]


Allegations against Martin

This section appears to contain unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims. Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources. Please remove unverified speculation from the article. (July 2013)


This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2013)

State's witness 8 testified that Martin had described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" just prior to the shooting. [309]


[N.S.: The most recent discussion—there are 15 sections of archives—from the "talk page," in which the Trayvonistas sandbag anyone trying to craft an honest entry, follows.]



blatant POV pushing and will not be tolerated[edit]

The fact that we have sworn testimony from witness 8/jeantel specifically indicating trayvon martin used a racial slur directed toward zimmerman is more relevant to wikipedia than 99% ofthe other speculative and fantasy racism found in the rest of the "allegation" of racism sections. If you can provide some evidence how anything else is even equally relevant in that entire section be my guest. As it is, it's nothing more than blatant political POV push trying to keep out the racist comments of Trayvon. (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Witness #8, Rachel Jeantel, testified to what Martin said to her over the phone in a conversation the night of the shooting. She did not testify that it was an "alleged race issue" or that is was "allegations against Martin". To the contrary, she testified that words like "cracker" and "nigger" which Martin said, are not offensive to her. When questioned about it again on a recross exam, she testified again that people in her community refer to white people as "cracker", and use the word "nigger", and this is non-offensive normal behavior. Additionally, she stated that she didn't consider the term "cracker" to be racial and also testified that she didn't know if Martin used those words regularly. Her testimony never indicated or even implied that it was an "alleged race issue" nor did she testify that it was an "allegation against Martin".

I understand what you are trying to convey here, but you are not putting her testimony into the proper context. She is not the one who alleged the terms she said Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one that chose to pursue that line of questioning about whether the terms Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one who made the allegations against Martin, and her, for that matter. But she never wavered in her testimony that those terms were not offensive to her.

There have been many media outlets that have highlighted that portion of the defense's line of questioning, and her answer's, and offered their opinions on what it may or may not have meant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

the fact she thinks that cracker is not racist and not offensive is not even remotely relevant. How many things do we delete on this wiki page because "george doesn't think so and so or say so and so, so we are just gonna delete it". SHE IS NOT TRAYVON MARTIN. She is also not part of "trayvon's community". You have supplied not a shred of an argument supporting non-inclusion. (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No. We are not going to add inflection or assert that which cannot be proven as "fact". At most, we would need third-party sources claiming that and we would have to cite it as "opinion" and provide context at minimum. The media is dramatic and biased for these issues; Wikipedia should not parrot such accusations blindly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but your logic for creating this sub-section with a single quote from Jeantel's testimony is that Martin made a racial comment, so therefore, it is an allegation against himself? I am not disputing that she testified to what Martin called Zimmerman, but she is not the one who alleged that the term Martin used to describe Zimmerman was a racial slur, defense attorney Don West did. Like I stated above, I get what you are trying to convey, but put it in the proper context. Here's what I believe you are trying to convey and is put in the proper context:

During the trial of Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel testifed that while on the phone with Martin on the night of the shooting, Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker". On cross examination of Jeantel, defense attorney Don West questioned her about the term (cracker) Martin used to describe Zimmerman, alleging that it was a racial slur. Jeantel testified that she did not believe it was a racial slur and that it was not offensive to her.'

Your edit doesn't even say who made the allegation against Martin. You've created a sub-section titled Allegations against Martin, but you fail to provide the reader with who is making the allegation. You can't just insert one line out of her testimony without putting it in the proper context. If you want to create a sub-section about Allegations against Martin, then you need to clarify exactly who is making the allegation against him, and it certainly wasn't Rachel Jeantel making that allegation, it was Don West.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but all of the sworn testimony in the trial refers to racial bias on part of Martin, not on the part of Zimmerman. I think its odd that the article only has subheadings regarding Zimmerman and the police. There should at least be a bullet about Martin given whats come out in court. (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

jeantel made the allegation that trayvon called george a cracker, that's "the allegation". We don't know if martin ever said that, or if martin did say it if it was in a racist mindset. You can only tell the facts and let the reader discern what they think.04:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

When defense attorney West asked her - "You don't think that's a racial comment" - that is when the "allegation" was made (by West) that what Martin had said about Zimmerman (creepy ass cracker) was a racial comment. Jeantel didn't allege that Martin made a racial comment, West did, her answer to West' question was No. Then West repeated the question to her again and she again said no, she didn't think what Martin had said about Zimmerman was a racial comment. West also asked her - "You don't think calling someone a creepy ass cracker is offensive" - now West is making an "allegation" that what Martin had said about Zimmerman was offensive. Jeantel answered No to that question (allegation) as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem really lost. As already said, what she THINKS is irrelevant. She is nothing more than a hearsay witness. She is not a telepathic. Nor are you. (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Neither are you. She repeated his words. Defense did not make an allegation (although they did make some implications towards that point). Allegations are made by reliable and notable commenters. If youw ant to include this content, find reliable sources, specifically making the allegation that this was racism or racial motivation. Taking the alleged hearsay fact of what martin said and saying that it is an allegation of racism is original research. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@ - If you believe that "what she THINKS is irrelevant", why are you arguing for inclusion of what she THINKS Martin said to her.

@Gaijin42 - Allegations can also be made by a defense attorney when they pursue a line of questioning about what a witness has testified to. West specifically asked Jeantel about racial issues, in response to her assertion that she thought it was racial because Martin had said a white man was following him. West seized upon that statement she made and then proceeded to ask her questions like: "It was racial because Trayvon put race in this?" - "You don't think that's a racial comment". Here are some sources discussing West's interaction with Jeantel.

And the defense really likes that "creepy-ass cracker" line that Martin delivered to his friend. West and his team have accused Jeantel in front of the cameras not so much of toning things down for the mother of dead 16-year-old as that Martin's slang somehow had some deeper meaning. The implication, in this transforming trial, has become that Trayvon Martin was the racist for calling George Zimmerman a "cracker,"...[5]

George Zimmerman's defense attorney insisted during several testy exchanges with an important prosecution witness Thursday that Trayvon Martin injected race into a confrontation with the neighborhood watch volunteer...[6]

Peterson suggested that line of questioning underscored racial subtleties of the case...[7]

I would argue that RS have alleged that West made "allegations against Martin" when he pursued that line of questioning. Use whatever term you wish in describing West' line of questioning - alleged, implied, asserted, contended - but there is no doubt that West interjected a racial component into his line of questioning concerning Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial, is not the same thing as saying that they themselves think it is racial. If/when they directly make that statement (closing?) that is making an allegation. If other notable/reliable sources are making that allegation, then it could be sourceable now. Zimmerman has directly been accused of being racist/acting in a racist manner. The SPD has directly been accused of being racist and acting in a racist manner. Thus far (within the context of the additions made to this article, and sources provided for that purpose) nobody has done so towards Martin. If such sources exist, then we can discuss adding it and attributing those allegations to them. Beyond that, the number of people making those allegations against Zimmerman/SPD is huge, compared to the one person (albeit highly relevant to the case) brought up here. The allegations are not apples to apples, and I would say they aren't even apples to oranges. They are apples to elephants. The alleged racism of Zimmerman and SPD has been directly linked to motive in their actions in the night. This linking has been made by multiple sources. To the degree that this issue has been raised against Martin, it is not a direct allegation (as stated before), and further it has not been linked to his actions in the night. Such a linking is fairly obvious, and plausible to make - but us making it is Original Research. Find someone else reliable who has done that for us, and attribute the allegations to them.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will defer to the original editor who inserted the information the task of finding reliable sources to support this being included in the article . My argument is that a single sentence cherry picked from Jeantel's testimony doesn't support an "allegation against Martin". Having said that, I do believe that if put in the proper context with reliable sources discussing this line of questioning, it is an allegation against Martin. The sources listed above all specifically mention defense attorney West and his line of questioning of Jeantel. I also believe that asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial is an allegation against the person who said it, because the person asking the question would have to believe that it was racial in order to ask the question in the first place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level, i don't disagree. Im just saying it isn't sufficiently sourced to convert that inferred allegation to an acutal allegation, particularly when compared to the explicit nature of the other allegations in the section. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you even talking about "sufficiently sourced". It's freakin sworn testimony. it doesn't get any more sufficiently sourced for an allegation.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Her sworn testimony is in fact a DENIAL of an allegation. She said it wasn't racist. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time already HER OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. It's not Trayvon's opinion. Even if trayvon would still be alive today and have said "it wasn't meant to be racist", the most you could do is say "he claims his words were not racist"etc. It's all further irrelevant by the fact the section is called "racial allegations", not racist allegation. So I can pull my lawyer notebook out and underline the fact that the section only is for "racial allegations" . not "racism allegations" cracker is clearly a racial epithet, whether racist of intent or not, hence would qualify.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)