Western propaganda

[WikiWikiWow]

Wikipedia's purpose in regards to politics is to legitimise Western propaganda by presenting it as a "balanced view based on reliable sources".

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence_state

A counterintelligence state (sometimes also called intelligence state, securocracy or spookocracy) is a state where the state security service penetrates and permeates all societal institutions, including the military.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The term has been applied by historians and political commentators to the former Soviet Union, the former German Democratic Republic, Cuba after the 1959 revolution, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, China under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and post-Soviet Russia under Vladimir Putin, especially since 2012.

"Political commentators" labeled past and present enemies of the United States as "spookocracies", how convenient for Wikipedia.

Compare to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stat ... ted_States

The deep state conspiracy theory in the United States is an American political conspiracy theory that posits the existence of the deep state, a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA). The theory argues that there exist networks of collaborators within the leadership of the high-level financial and industrial entities, which exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government.[1]

No mention of "political commentators" or their view here. It seems sometimes OR is allowed, in the spirit of IAR.

Checking the talk page, you find the usual suspects, Doug Weller and MrOllie

If you want to do that you need to start an WP:RfC. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither a community discussion nor a RFC has much chance of reaching the result you're asking for. The other option is to just accept that and walk away. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well that settles it! ...except it didn't, the editor/s managed to get the "false" descriptor removed from the lead. Most Wikipedians see "conspiracy theory" as synonymous with "false", anyway.

Just goes to show how experienced editors will throw obstacles in the way, hoping that the editor wishing to make the change gives up.

[Ognistysztorm]

It goes in all ways, and in all forms. Whether you're liberal or conservative, pro or anti America, if you spend a lot of efforts in gaming the system to distort the articles you'll likely get your edits stick around as challengers are shut out from having even a voice at all.