If you didn't think it was a worthwhile source, why did you link it? Seems to be a bit of a double standard if you're using it to bolster your claim (without actually using the page, mind you) and object to others doing the same.

▲

throwaway48476 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Wikipedia is useful as a source for incontrovertible biographical details. Less so for political opinions which bias towards the editors.

	▲	SketchySeaBeast 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The statement "The FCC was created in order to prevent the airing of opinions the government disfavored" does not seem to be "incontrovertible". Important to note, the source for this section is an article from slate, which also includes paragraphs such as: > During the blowback, Coughlin could still count on support from one corner. Nazi Germany characterized the efforts to rein in Coughlin as “a typical case of Jewish terrorism of American public opinion.” Coughlin agreed, portraying himself as a victim of Jewish-owned media. > It got worse. On Dec. 5, 1938, in Coughlin’s house organ Social Justice, under his own byline, he plagiarized a speech by Nazi Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, originally delivered in 1935 at the Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg. By then, quipsters were referring to Coughlin’s church as “the Shrine of the Little Führer.”[1] But I supposed this is spurious as well. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/father-coughlin-deplatf...