Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Public schools in the United States

2010-02-26T02:43:44Z

Amatthews: /* After 1962 */

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the first things one sees when entering the visitor's parking lot at Charlotte High School, a public school in Punta Gorda, Florida, is a sign informing vistors of the on-campus surveillance cameras.]]
[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref>

Due to the failure of the liberal-controlled public schools, about 1 in 7 adult Americans cannot read. Specifically, 32 million adult Americans are illiterate.<ref>http://www.livescience.com/culture/090110-illiterate-adults.html</ref> This is caused by the following characteristics of public schools:

*30% fail to graduate from high school,<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% leave high school unqualified to go on to four-year college.<ref name="graduate"/>
*77% have used illicit drugs. Fatal overdoses are common but underreported; public schools are required to present drug "education" to kids<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002] Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref>
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*One in three teen girls in the United States is estimated to get pregnant at least once before age 20.<ref>http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_preg/teen_preg.html</ref> About 10% of the girls become pregnant in a typical school; about half have [[abortion]]s, and about half give birth; public schools "educate" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame" to [[teenage pregnancy]] at public school, the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally<ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% become addicted to cigarettes<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Nearly 10% have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a pro-homosexual student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the [[Bible]], even as history and literature
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>

==History==

===United States===

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

===United Kingdom===
In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others. The term public was used because the school was open to all public applicants, albeit ones that could afford to pay the fees. The UK equivalent of US public schools are called state schools which provide education for free to all pupils.

The first UK state school, Beverley Grammar School, was founded in 700AD. Despite the fact that around 90% of UK children are educated at one, state schools are looked down upon and derided. This is especially so of the 'Bog Standard Comprehensive' where images of teachers wearing stab vests and knife arches and invoked.

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

=== Prayer ===

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
Textbooks (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal]] bias exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—marriage, religion, politics, and business. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread secular and liberal mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the University of Dayton, wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the founders wanted a "wall of separation" between church and state, that "Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers", and that "Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

===Non-Dismissal of Tenured Teachers===
Due to the strength of the nations teachers union, it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with tenure. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest school district, Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]

Public schools in the United States

2010-02-26T02:43:08Z

Amatthews: /* Before 1962 */

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the first things one sees when entering the visitor's parking lot at Charlotte High School, a public school in Punta Gorda, Florida, is a sign informing vistors of the on-campus surveillance cameras.]]
[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref>

Due to the failure of the liberal-controlled public schools, about 1 in 7 adult Americans cannot read. Specifically, 32 million adult Americans are illiterate.<ref>http://www.livescience.com/culture/090110-illiterate-adults.html</ref> This is caused by the following characteristics of public schools:

*30% fail to graduate from high school,<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% leave high school unqualified to go on to four-year college.<ref name="graduate"/>
*77% have used illicit drugs. Fatal overdoses are common but underreported; public schools are required to present drug "education" to kids<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002] Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref>
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*One in three teen girls in the United States is estimated to get pregnant at least once before age 20.<ref>http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_preg/teen_preg.html</ref> About 10% of the girls become pregnant in a typical school; about half have [[abortion]]s, and about half give birth; public schools "educate" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame" to [[teenage pregnancy]] at public school, the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally<ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% become addicted to cigarettes<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Nearly 10% have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a pro-homosexual student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the [[Bible]], even as history and literature
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>

==History==

===United States===

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

===United Kingdom===
In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others. The term public was used because the school was open to all public applicants, albeit ones that could afford to pay the fees. The UK equivalent of US public schools are called state schools which provide education for free to all pupils.

The first UK state school, Beverley Grammar School, was founded in 700AD. Despite the fact that around 90% of UK children are educated at one, state schools are looked down upon and derided. This is especially so of the 'Bog Standard Comprehensive' where images of teachers wearing stab vests and knife arches and invoked.

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

=== Prayer ===

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
Textbooks (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal]] bias exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—marriage, religion, politics, and business. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread secular and liberal mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the University of Dayton, wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the founders wanted a "wall of separation" between church and state, that "Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers", and that "Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

===Non-Dismissal of Tenured Teachers===
Due to the strength of the nations teachers union, it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with tenure. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest school district, Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a much less impressive list of celebrities and others who attended public school ''after'' prayer was banned in 1962:

*Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, attended Miami Palmetto Senior High School FL.<ref>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1
</ref>
*Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo.com, graduated from Sierramont Middle School, and Piedmont Hills High School, CA.<ref>http://goldsea.com/Innovators/Yangjerry/yangjerry3.html</ref>
*David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo.com graduated from Sam Houston High School TX.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/301/000123929/</ref>
*[[Kathryn D. Sullivan]], NASA astronaut and first American woman to walk in space, graduated from Taft High School, Woodland Hills, California, in 1969. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/sullivan-kd.html</ref>
*[[S. Christa Mcauliffe]], astronaut participant, graduated from Marian High School, Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1966. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcauliffe.html
</ref>
*[[Mae C. Jemison]], NASA astronaut and first African-America woman in space, graduated from Morgan Park High School, Chicago, Illinois, in 1973. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/jemison-mc.html
</ref>
*[[Ellen Ochoa]], NASA astronaut and the first Hispanic-American woman astronaut, graduated from Grossmont High School, La Mesa, California, in 1975. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ochoa.html</ref>
*[[Jeana Yeager]], aviator, graduated from Commerce High School GA in 1970.<ref>http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/mrp/pdf/today/12-07-05.pdf
</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981. <ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's.<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html
</ref>
*[[John Edwards]], former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]], attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Bill Gates]], founder of Microsoft, ''left'' public school after attending in Seattle until the age of twelve.<ref>http://www.thocp.net/biographies/gates_bill.htm</ref>
*[[Rush Limbaugh]] graduated from Central High School, MO in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State University for two semesters <ref>http://www.phillytalkradio.com/shows/show.php?show_id=limb</ref>
*[[Frank Wilczek]], Nobel laureate, attended Martin Van Buren High School, Queens, NY, during the late 1960's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000140300/</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class [[Randall Shughart]], U.S. Army, Battle of Mogadishu hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Big Spring High School in Newville, PA in 1976. <ref> http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/shughart.html\</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class [[Paul Ray Smith]], U.S. Army, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Tampa Bay Vocational Technical High School, FL in 1988. <ref>http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/profile/index.html</ref>
*Cpl. [[Jason Dunham]], U.S. Marines, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Scio High School NY, in 2002.<ref> http://copthetruth.typepad.com/cop_the_truth/2007/03/uss_jason_dunha.html</ref>
*Lt. [[Michael Murphy]], Navy SEAL, Afghanistan War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. <ref> http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/Schools/HS/articles/0708/murphy/index.html</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964).{{fact}}
*[[John Cromwell Mather]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Newton High School, Newton, NJ in 1964. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000137504/</ref>
*[[George Fitzgerald Smoot]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Upper Arlington High School, Upper Arlington, OH in 1962. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000137510/</ref>
*[[Hugh David Politzer]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1966. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/716/000140296/</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964
*[[Pat Tillman]], former NFL football player and US Army soldier (tragically killed by friendly fire) who graduated from Leland High School CA.<ref>http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=197041</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]

Talk:Public schools in the United States

2010-02-26T02:42:11Z

Amatthews: /* Removal of Section on Famous Americans */

Looks like a few people are trying to edit this page at the same time. Between this and my initial screw-up with providing references, I think my edit should be alright. I'll work on some more names later.--Jimmy 14:45, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh my bad. I hate it when people edit conflict me so I always try to wait, but I guess I wated too long. I'm not sure why you undid the formatting though. In general we bullet any lists because it's so much easier to read. I'll chalk it up to an edit conflict and undo it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:12, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Atheistic Public Schools? ==

Public schools are not atheistic institutions. Just because they obey the constitution and don't promote prayer, it doesn't make them atheistic. In addition, they don't promote atheism at all, they merely don't promote religion. If no one minds, I'll remove the first section from the article.--[[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 19:17, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I agree completely. Saying that because public schools do not preach christianity means that they are "atheistic" is ridiculous. Aren't conservatives the ones who say parents should educate their children about morals, not the government? Schools should teach math, science, history, writing, art, and foreign language and leave the rest for people to decide on their own. ''That'' is limited government. --[[User:Mars2035|Mars2035]] 21:21, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::My high school had agnostic students--thought they were atheist--with many Christian/Catholic teachers. +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 14:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Religion is censored from [[public schools]]: there is no classroom prayer, no religious symbols, no emphasize on moral right and wrong, etc. Sure, students may be agnostic or religious, but they better not try to say a group prayer during class time or they risk being punished. That's an atheistic culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Mr Schlafly: It is one thing to assert something and another to actually provide a reference. Is there any chance you could provide a valid reference that states American public schools are atheistic? In my daughter's school, students are allowed to pray during class hours, moral values are taught and emphasized during civics and other classes, and she has never seen anyone punished for praying. The atheist tag you are placing on this article wouldn't be constantly challenged if you could provide a solid reference. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 16:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: There is no classroom prayer in any [[public school]] in the [[United States]]. Does that really need a reference? No morals are taught either and no religious symbols are displayed. The [[Ten Commandments]] cannot be found either. References could be supplied for these obvious facts; indeed, you could add them yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please reference my last comment. There is obviously prayer allowed and morals taught at my daughter's PUBLIC SCHOOL which is in AMERICA so you are wrong about asserting, without evidence, that prayer in public schools is prohibited in America. And yes, your assertion needs a reference because it flies in the face of every statement issued by the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning prayer in public schools. This is even mentioned in the article. I even posted other evidence concerning the opinions of many civil liberties groups and their support of the constitutional right of students to pray in public school but you declared that edit was 'liberal' and deleted it. Now if you want to insist that both Clinton and Bush are completely wrong and the advice they got from their legal advisors is completely without merit, please post a valid reference that disputes the opinions of our country's leaders and legal experts. I don't have the slightest clue where I would find a reference that supports what you are claiming or I would gladly assist. Please provide the reference to your assertion so we can all lay this matter to rest. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

This article states that public schools are "atheistic," and atheism is defined by this encyclopedia as the denial of the existence of God. I don't mean to get overly technical here, but it seems illogical that a broadly defined institution such as American public schools could be said to deny the existence of God, unless there has been some statement (or a rash of statements) that I am not aware of (and is not cited) on behalf of public schools specifically denying that God exists. The thrust of this article seems to be not that public schools are atheistic but that they are Godless institutions, lacking in the moral fundamentals of religion and defining themselves as expressly secular. Therefore, I am changing "atheistic" to "Godless" in the header. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: Public schools are not "secular", which means reflective of society as a whole. Rather, they are deliberately exclusive of faith, morality and religion. "Godless" is a pejorative term, and atheistic is better because it encompasses atheistic ideologies like evolution that are taught in schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::I suppose you're right, although "secular" is often used to mean "exclusive of religion." Yes, "Godless" is a pejorative, but so is "atheistic," as least as it is defined in this encyclopedia. I also contest that evolution is an (exclusively) atheistic ideology, as many scientists who believe in evolution are theists. Finally, do you have any citations to support the fact that public schools specifically deny the existence of God, or are you using "atheistic" more as a catch-all to describe the godless mindset in general (and, if so, I'd like a better definition of the term). [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 13:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::: There may or may not be theistic evolutionists, but evolution is predominantly an atheistic ideology. Ditto for other things taught in public school, such as materialism. Schools are not merely "godless", as they exclude teaching of "right" and "wrong". The term "secular" is misused to mean "exclusive of religion." That is not its actual meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sorry, just one more point here, regarding the definition of "secular:" according to dictionary.com, which may not be the best source, the first 3 definitions specifically mean "non-religious" and there is no definition given for "reflective of a society as a whole." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 14:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I just checked Merriam-Webster and ''none'' of the definitions mean "non-religious." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:02, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: As usual, I hate to differ with you, but 'I' just checked Merriam-Webster, and the first two definitions say "non-religious." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:01, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: My cite doesn't. One of the definitions does say not ''specifically'' religious, as in denominational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Not to beat a dead horse, BUT the definition I'm seeing on Merriam-Webster.com says this: "1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>" thus clearly defining secular as equivalent to nonreligious or nonspiritual. The next definition gets at more of the nondenominational meaning, but I don't see how you can say that this does not mean nonreligious. Furthermore, a search on Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus defines "secular" to mean "not involving religion or religious matters <that's an issue for the secular authorities, not the church>". On the other hand, I have not seen a single dictionary support your definition of secular as "reflective of society as a whole." [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 23:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think "non-religious" is a better term.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 13:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: "Non-religious" does not capture the hostility, such as the affirmative censorship of prayer. A group may be non-religious and still allow, and even welcome, an occasional prayer. But an atheistic culture censors the occasional group prayer, as public schools do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::I think this is a good point, but what I want to know is why you want to characterize hostility toward religion on the part of public schools (an unsourced pejorative), yet you won't use "godless" on the grounds that it is pejorative. Also, I was hoping for an answer to the other concerns I brought up, and if I may add one more to that: you say that "Schools are not merely godless, as they exclude teaching of right and wrong," but don't you think that being godless inherently suggests the lack of morality, in the same way that atheism does? Again, you need to cite some sources to describe this broader atheistic lifestyle you seem to be describing. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 14:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::As I've said before (I think, but I'm too lazy to check), I'd prefer "nontheistic" to "atheistic." Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Public schools]] are hostile to more than [[God]], such as right and wrong, and promote (false) ideologies that lead students to [[atheism]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

There not so much Atheistic as they are anti-Christian. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It is very obvious that you and whoever wrote this article has never set foot in a public school with competent staff. I am a high school senior and we have a moment of silence every day. The majority of my teachers are Christians, and although they do not press their beliefs on anyone, they certainly make it known.

::::My biology teacher frequently emphasizes the fact that evolution can coexist with the teachings of the three mainstream religions. He presents evolution as a fact (because...I'm sorry, but it is one. We're in the 21st century now, guys) but does not discount panspermia (the belief that life came from another planet) or intelligent design. He is a Christian, but does not bias his information one way or the other.

::::In my Theory of Knowledge class, the liberals, conservatives, Christians, Hindus, and atheists openly debate the definition and roots of ethics, morality, and religion. Sometimes we reach a conclusion leaning towards atheism, sometimes we reach one leaning towards Christianity. But the point is, we are presented the facts and we debate, discuss, research, and discover the roots, impacts, and issues of many ethical paradoxes and religious issues. The teacher provides input, but only to clarify and guide us in the direction of the class standards. I've learned more about what is right and wrong through arguments in that class than I have in any religious service. I've won debates and been viciously proven wrong, but at the end of the day we're all classmates who joke about it later, because unlike so many people, we have an open enough mind to throw our opinions out there and see if they stand the tests of debate and scrutiny.

::::Not that anything on this site is remotely correct (I thought this site was a joke when I read the Obama "article"...it still could be for all I know), but public education is something I just gotta take a stand on. No one knows better than someone who's been through 11.5 years of it. And if anyone's wondering, I live in the conservative state of SC, smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. So don't tell me my surroundings influence my opinions, because they don't. I know this comment (or parts of it) will be deleted/altered shortly after it is posted (because I don't agree with you...very fair, I know), but I hope at least one diehard conservative reads this and realizes that not every issue can be defended from his upper-middle class white Christian Hummer-driving viewpoint. If anyone would like to discuss my contribution further on an unbiased, uncensored, free medium, my AIM name is kevh89 and my e-mail address is Nivek_04085@yahoo.com. So much for access to Conservapedia, because like a dissenter in communist Russia, I will probably be exiled from the IP for disagreeing. I'll just have to log in on a friends' computer for my daily laughs. This "encyclopedia" is an insult to education. [[User:Frogmaster13|Frogmaster13]] 21:58, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I feel the need to point out that the reason prayer and whatnot are not used in public schools is because the United States Law ensures freedom of religion and separation of church and state, which is meant to advance this end. Not all public school students are Christian. Many are atheist, agnostic, or some other religion that does not have the same rituals (specifically, praying to God) as Christianity. Not only would prayer and whatnot in public schools be illegal, it would be unfair to all of the young Americans who are non-Christian. That is my interpretation. [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 23:05, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm a religious person, devout in my faith, but I don't think that prayer should be allowed. For my faith or any other, do you know why? No one is of the same religion. I had a buddy, an Atheist, go to a school. A public school. When people found out he wasn't Christian, they tried to beat him up int he name of Jesus Christ. My children will be raised in my faith, a pagan faith. We are small in number, and as your site suggests, very good people. But with people out there that would attack my future children for not being of the same faith, why would I want to bring that upon them? Also, I'm a moderate, I'd actually consider myself to be moderate-conservative, but I had outrageous conservative views *pushed* upon me at my school. Not liberal views. Conservative. I had a teacher tell the students not to vote for Kerry because he supported gay rights. And why do schools need to teach morals? Teach right and wrong? Isn't that why parents exist? I'll teach my kids morals. I'll teach them what I believe to be right and wrong. I don't need some teacher telling them right and wrong. That isn't their job. To me, this article makes it sound like conservatives want to be lazy and have schools do all of their parenting work for them. - JaffaLycosa

::::Liberals believe in free speech for their views, but not for conservative ones. Public schools have liberal speech ad nauseum. It's tyranny to censor prayer and other conservative speech in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::: I believe in free speech for everyone. My school, conservatives were beating up liberals for their liberal views. I was in a public school my whole life (fortunately, my parents weren't rich enough to put me in a private school). Liberals cut off conservatives and conservatives cut off liberals. Neither one of them are better than the other. But all of these comments are garbage. Because Jesus isn't pushed onto me at school is why I have a lower vocabulary? You really think religion has anything to do with lower grades? And why just Christianity? Do you really think that my children deserve to have a religion forced upon them at a public school? I thought this was a free country? Free of religion. You're acting like this country should be freedom of religion for Christians and nothing else. I don't want my kids learning from the Ten Commandments at school. So tell me, if Christianity should be allowed back in school, should teaching my religion be allowed as well? - JaffaLycosa

:::::You don't believe in meaningful free speech if you insist on censoring classroom prayer. Your claims about people beating each other up is just a liberal way to justify censorship of conservative speech in school. Even if that were your criterion, there's a lot more "beating up" done in the absence of classroom prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::: Oh, I believe in Freedom of Speech. And also, my 'claims' aren't a 'liberal way'. These aren't conservative views you're throwing here, they are hateful Christian views. I don't care if people pray in school, I'm talking about organized prayer. When you have "prayer time" and not everyone believes in praying, it makes those people outcasts. It's not a good thing. If a group of kids want to go pray to their god during lunch time, that's fine by me. Go right ahead and more power to you. It happened in my school and people didn't get into trouble. But I'm talking about when prayer time is set aside in the classroom in the school. It's a public school, prayer is a religious thing. Religion, mine or yours or in general, doesn't need to be forced on anyone. I'm sure you can agree to that. -JaffaLycosa

:::::While I do not believe that teachers should influence students on any single religion (religion is a fascinating thing and I believe all major religions should be taught, and equally at that), I also don't see any problem with students praying in school, or even teachers (as long as they don't force a student to pray). Another thing is that sports coaches in high school should be allowed to lead their players in a prayer before going out to a game. If the player isn't religious, or not Christian, or whatever, no harm done. They don't have to participate. I'm new here and I don't mean to offend or anything, just sharing my opinion. I apologize if its been stated already. [[User:CeruleanFalls|SarahH]]

:::::I agree with that, Sarah. Prayer was allowed in my school, just not organized prayer. From what I can tell, that's how the law states. No one was in trouble when they prayed. It was when they forced their beliefs that the trouble came. That's why I don't understand this. In fact, my school, a public school, had a religious studies class. It studied religions. That would make it not an atheist school. Also, don't say major religions. There are minor religions out there too. Don't play favorites here. -JaffaLycosa

::::::JaffaLycosa, I can't tell if you're unaware of how liberals censor prayer in public schools, or if you're aware but in denial. In public schools, there cannot be a classroom prayer ever, under any circumstance. A coach cannot participate in a prayer with players. Do you support this censorship, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, I don't support censorship much at all to be honest. If people want to pray, more power to them. Having an organized "prayer time" I don't agree is a good idea. If students want to pray, let them. Don't let them force their beliefs on others, however. Same with teachers. After 9/11, I took part in a prayer circle on my school grounds. Although it was Christian oriented, I still took part out of respect for those that died. No one got into trouble for it. I don't see this total attack against prayer. All I've seen is an attack against organized prayer. Now, if you want to have a time set aside during the day for "self reflection" and people want to pray during that time, that's fine. I don't even care if there are religious groups involved at school, as long as all religions are allowed to be represented and even non-theists and atheists are allowed to have groups. I pray to my gods, Andy, trust me. I don't think that praying is bad at all, but we have to go about it in an intelligent way. The last thing schools need is a religious war in their halls. And on that note, I think that teaching religion in schools is a good idea. A class enveloping all of the religions to teach respect for one another, which to me, is the American way. I may be "pagan" Andy, but I'm not hateful towards Christians in the slightest nor do I wish for their religious views and beliefs to be stamped out, even in schools. -- JaffaLycosa

:::::::JaffaLycosa, the students want to start the class with a prayer, and the teacher wants to participate. '''This is illegal in public schools'''. The football players want to say a prayer before taking the field, and the coach wants to join them. '''This is illegal in public schools'''. Do you support that ban, or not? Please state your position first, and only afterward is it productive to discuss your reasons. This isn't rocket science, and I'll move on to other discussions if your position still remains unclear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Its pretty clear to me that Jaffa has already stated that he/she (not sure if male or female) agrees that teachers and high school sports team coaches should be allowed to pray if they want to, as Jaffa stated they agree with me when I said that. I am unclear as to whether there is an actual ban in place stating teachers/coaches can under no circumstances participate in prayers in public schools. Could you cite a specific law or policy which prevents teachers/coaches from participating in prayer organized by the students/players, Mr. Schlafly? I'd be very interested in seeing what is in place, exactly. Thank you. [[User:CeruleanFalls|SarahH]] 14:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::If it weren't rocket science, Andy, then you'd have came to the same conclusion Sarah just did. I don't care if students and teachers want to pray. As long as they don't shove their beliefs on others, as long as they don't act like someone is wrong because they don't participate in the same prayer, I don't care. But I want to know, Andy, would you mind if the teacher started a pagan prayer with the class? If you heard about a teacher that prayed a pagan prayer with some pagan students, how would you react? Please be honest, I'd like to know your stance on teachers and students taking part in organized non-Christian/Jewish/Islam prayers. But to answer your question clearly, I'm not against it. As I said, I took part in a '''Christian''' prayer with both '''students''' and '''teachers''' involved while a pagan. If people want to pray, let them. Just don't beat people up or treat them like crap if they don't. Also, I'm a guy. - JaffaLycosa

:::::::::How'd I know you weren't going to answer that question? - JaffaLycosa

::::::::::You probably knew because I already said "I'll move on to other discussions if your position still remains unclear." Also, 100% of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, in violation of our [[90/10 Rule]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we help students and others here and nonstop talk doesn't advance that goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== Uncited Assertions==

I would like to see evidence for the assertion that public schools are atheistic and spoken prayer is forbidden in the classroom. The idea that this should be present without a reference goes against the standards of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 13:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:Then go ahead and help find it. If I can find such references within the time it takes you to complain about the lack of them, then you can find them as well and help contribute to the building of this encyclopedia. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::It is my understanding that the person making the claim needs to provide the source documentation. For the record, I do not know of any reputable source that claims the American public school system is atheistic. Nor do I know of any law or court decision that prohibits all spoken prayer in the classroom, hence my request for a citation.

::Just so you know, I am contributing to the building of this encyclopedia. In the time I have taken to voice my objection to the lack of sources, have you come up with your own references?--Jimmy 15:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yes I have. I've known for years that school prayer was removed from the schools as a result of an atheistic loudmouth named Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who used her son to force her religious beliefs through the Supreme Court in 1962. The account was also written in the book "Let Us Pray", by William Murray, an evangelical pastor who was O'Hair's tool back then.
:::Whining about lack of references does not build up this encyclopedia; helping out to fill in the missing holes does, and I expect you to do so. You don't know because you never bothered to look; you sat there and expected everyone else to do it for you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:58, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Prayer has not been removed from public schools and anyone that thinks this is the case is seriously misinformed. O'Hair's lawsuit, ''Murray v. Curlett'', (consolidated with ''Abington Township School District v. Schempp'') declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. The key words here are 'school sponsored'. Students are allowed to pray as long as it is initiated by them and does not interfere with classes or instruction. Please reference this court ruling and the additional references I included in the article concerning the opinions of the Clinton and Bush administrations position on public school prayer.

::::You are referring to my requests for documentation as 'whining'. Yet all I am trying to do is follow the commandments and guidelines of this encyclopedia. This is Conservapedia, an organization where the article writers must provide documentation for their articles. This is not Wikipedia where everyone is entitled to their own opinion without providing references. What is wrong with insisting that everyone follow the rules and guidelines?

::::I'm sure that you noticed that the vast majority of this article has been written by me. Every word I have written is backed-up by references as required by the commandments. Yet this doesn't seem to satisfy you, why not? I've put a significant amount of time into this article and when someone makes an unreferenced assertion, I would like them to provide the same type of references that I am required to.

::::If you have an addition to this article or a source that can back-up what is already written, then please contribute your efforts. Where this article is concerned, all you have done is complain when someone is trying to make valid contributions. --Jimmy 16:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Jimmy, sources are readily available on the internet, or simply ask someone who goes to public school, or teaches there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:36, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::::If the sources are readily available, then they should be listed with the article. A person reading the article shouldn't have to do their own research when the article writer is required to provide a reference.--Jimmy 16:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::::I think this represents one of the biggest problems I've identified with site in that it is built upside down. Most articles seem to start with conclusions (public schools are bad, atheism is bad, Obama is a Muslim) and then looks for evidence to support these conclusions. If no evidence is found, the statements are usually just left. An encylopedia should look at the evidence first, then see which conclusions can be drawn from it.--[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 10:24, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::: Provide your best specific example and let's look at it. The "biggest problem" with the detractors, with all due respect, is a lack of an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Well, I've been trying to draw your attention to the problems with the Tone Section in the Obama article, which I tried to address on the Obama talk page.--[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 15:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Mandatory / Teacher-lead / Spoken Prayers==

I'm sorry if there was some sort of misunderstanding, but I wasn't aware that all spoken prayer is banned in public schools... would a student making a simple prayer (at a practical time) really be punished for doing so? Perhaps I'm missing another sort of prayer, other than teacher-led, that is also banned? I was just trying to clarify what is actually "forbidden" and where these lines are drawn in most public schools. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:06, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: Yes, it is banned. Surely you know someone who goes to public school, or teaches there???? Anyone, teacher or student, who tries to lead a prayer in school is likely to be disciplined and have that go on his record.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::I know people that go to and teach at public schools and prayer is allowed many times during the day, even during class time as long as it does not interfere with instruction. Yet the article states: ''''Spoken prayer … are expressly forbidden in public schools classrooms during school hours, and teaching of morality is implicitly disfavored.'''' I would like to see a reference that supports that sentence, it seems to be at odds with what I observe and current legal reasoning.--Jimmy 16:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::Ah, yes, I see what you mean Andy... sorry, I didn't mean to overemphasize who it was leading the prayer. In public schools, essentially any prayer beyond individual, inconspicuous prayer on one's own time is banned or strongly discouraged. Perhaps instead of "spoken prayer"... "group prayer" or "collective prayer" might more accurately denote this situation? I'm not sure, the current term seemed a bit confusing - but that might just be me. Anyway, clarify it if you like, thanks for explaining. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:34, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Why were my edits reverted? I've been asking for a reference for the school prayer comments at the top of the page for a while and none were provided. The comment about prominent Americans not attending public schools since 1962 was deleted because I felt it was a little odd to have that sentence there when it is obvious that it was not true.--Jimmy 13:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

::::: The list shows that the only prominent Americans were educated before 1962, and there is no disputing the observation about prayer being banned at public schools, along with the Ten Commandments. You can easily find cites for that if that were your goal. Deleting factual information for liberal reasons is allowed at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

::::::There are two lists of prominent Americans educated in public schools. The second list provides the names of fifteen that were educated after 1962 so why are you insisting that there aren't any prominent Americans educated after 1962? I am disputing your observation concerning public school prayer because according to George W. Bush and the Department of Education, you are wrong, and Bush is far from being a liberal.

::::::I can't find any cites to support your conclusions about public school prayer; that is why I want you to provide them. If they exist, please show me where, according to the commandments it is your responsibility to do so. Since Conservapedia is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", I feel that references should be provided for every alleged fact presented in its pages. I don't see how that has a liberal stance, facts are facts.--Jimmy 13:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::Um, last time I checked, only teacher led/mandatory prayer in schools was banned. Students/Teachers can pray, however, they can't be disruptive to the class or make others pray that don't want to. Anyways, then there is the matter of which religion's prayers/worship style should be used. That would show favoritism to one religion and annoy other people who get offended. This leads to either having the class do prayers, etc.. of every religion or not having any prayer mandatory. The first option is infeasible because it would detract from time that could be used to learn subject material. So that is why teacher led/mandatory prayer isn't allowed in public schools. Willing individuals can pray together, however it must not be a distraction to a class. This is my two cents.[[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Unjustified Edits ==

Mr. Schlafly:

This is just getting worse. Your reference to the prohibition of the Ten Commandments in public schools is a reference to another Conservapedia article which itself doesn't have a reference. How is that suppose to work? And this reference has nothing to do with the alleged prohibition of spoken prayer or teaching of morality. I'll ask again, can you provide valid references for the following opinions you have made; spoken prayer is prohibited in public schools, school prayer was banned in 1962, and the teaching of morality is disfavored? According to the commandments of this encyclopedia, you are not providing the proper documentation for most of your opinions expressed in this article and yet I get the feeling you wouldn't tolerate unreferenced edits from me.

Changing the heading of the second list of Americans that attended public schools doesn't make sense. Of the fifteen people listed, only three can be considered 'celebrities'. The rest are prominent business men, astronauts, politicians, an aviator and a soldier. Since only 20% of the people listed are celebrities, how does that add up to 'mostly celebrity'?

I get the feeling that I am going to be blocked soon. I was warned once before about not insisting on people following the rules of this encyclopedia and that I should be expected to look up the references for other people's opinions even if I didn't think they were valid. I hope I'll be able to make contributions to this website.--Jimmy 20:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:Not quite yet, but I reverted your last edit here. If you feel that schools are teaching morality, reversing the wording of one sentence isn't helping the article.

:Can you write a few sentences on [[Morality in public schools]], please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::I would like to write a section about morality in public schools, but what good would it do. The second sentence of this article claims, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that student prayer in public schools is prohibited and morality implicitly disfavored. It doesn't matter that I provided plenty of evidence that this assertion is completely without basis. Unless the second sentence is changed to reflect reality, this article will always look goofy. The latest reference that Aschlafly supplied actually shows prayer is allowed at public schools. I quote from the reference, "'''It ended in the spring of 2006 when the Knox County School Board promised in writing to allow students "religious expression" during "discretionary time'''." Far from demonstrating that public schools are forbidding prayer, this reference makes it clear that if students are denied the right to pray during non-instructional times, they always have someone that will fight for them and restore their rights.

::Look at the edits I made earlier that were reverted. Notice how many times 'atheistic' was replaced with 'secular' before it wasn't reverted. A list showing a broad coalition of civil liberties groups supporting public school prayer was removed for being 'liberal'. I've had no luck removing the 'disclaimer' about prominent Americans being educated in public schools. It still states prayer is banned and no 'prominent Americans' have been educated in public schools even though I have demonstrated otherwise. I've made continuous requests for references to support the opinions expressed in the second sentence of this article only to be ignored and threatened. Will you offer any assurance that what I write will not be summarily dismissed? I'd hate to waste my time.--Jimmy 00:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Reference List ==
Something happened to the reference list after my last edit. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:*points to #25 and #26* +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 17:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Drop out rates==
It's worse in some districts. Less than 25% of students in Detroit graduate. That is one big reason why I am working on getting certified to teach in the inner city - the need is so great. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: God bless you for doing that, Dan. If I could hold classroom prayer to start the class with those kids and get rid of the liberal ideology, I could double that graduation rate. But the liberals won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it's probably because the No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLBA forces teachers to teach to the test instead of the subject matter. Schools that don't meet the requirements loose funding and find themselves in financial holes that are kind of hard to get out of (that was an understatement). It also forces schools to reduce funding in the science arts in favor of basic skills. While the basic skills are important, the sciences and arts are absolutely paramount to society. Anyways, the government as a whole must take the blame for this because of the negative effects. [[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

==Political Correctness as a Hindering Factor==

It's frequently noted that private schools tend to do better than public schools, and that other countries (India, China, and so forth) are turning out more and better-equipped scientists and engineers than America at present.

I would suggest that there's a common factor: none of those educational environments are guided by the notion that every student has equal ability, and that if we just try really hard, every student can achieve at the same level.

Bluntly: that notion is political correctness, and it's a tremendous handicap for several reasons.

First, it makes it all but impossible to hold students accountable for their own education. Social promotion ensures that students who make no effort continue to be passed on to higher grades. While in school, they face essentially no consequences for lack of effort; the consequences only catch up with them when they get out into the real world and discover that they're woefully unqualified for any job.

Second, the one-size-fits-all approach to education hurts both gifted and non-gifted students in the name of "not labeling." Modern educational theory insists that students at all levels of ability need to be taught in the same classroom at the same time, resulting in a Catch-22. Either the teacher can teach at the level of the lowest students in the class--ensuring that the rest of the class will be bored stiff and receive little useful information--or at a higher level, ensuring that the struggling students will be lost.

This is hand-waved with bland optimism and buzzwords like "differentiated instruction." There's only so much differentiation you can do in forty minutes, though.

''Why'' is it wrong to suggest that working with a group of students who are at roughly the same level will enable lessons to be tailored to that level? Why is it wrong to suggest that students who excel in English, in science, or in mathematics be given the chance to excel and to push beyond the baseline curriculum? ''That'' is how other countries produce better-educated engineers and scientists: they don't try to educate everyone to the same level.

Apologies for the rant, but as a teacher in a public school myself, I'm frequently frustrated by having my hands tied. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== A suggestion about references ==
Mr. DeanS: The references for the claim that public schools are atheistic are downright embarrassing. The first reference deals with Kennedy's assertion that public schools are atheistic; no need for him to give any evidence, just blah, blah, blah. The second reference is from WND, that by itself is bad enough, but after taking 30 seconds to read the article, I actually laughed out loud for a few seconds. I don't quite understand, the reference says the school is allowing football players to pray as a group, and this is your evidence that public schools are atheistic? I thought public school students weren't allowed to pray in public schools? That is the completely unsupported claim made by one of the editors of this article. Yet you posted a reference that stated kids are allowed to pray? The third reference actually said students have the right to pray during discretionary time. It stated at the beginning of the article, ''"It ended in the spring of 2006 when the Knox County School Board promised in writing to allow students "religious expression" during "discretionary time."'' And you insist on saying this is a quality reference for your assertion that public schools are atheistic? Please give me a break. You can do much better than that. If your claim can actually be supported that is.

This article is a complete piece of junk because it has so many contradicting claims. Every claim that public schools are atheistic or doesn't teach morals is backed up with lousy references that don't support the claim while the entries I wrote used reliable references. Is there any chance this article can be edited to reflect reality? I realize some people just can't grasp the concept that students in America's secular public schools are allowed to pray, out loud, even during classes, and are allowed to read the Ten Commandments, etc. I know this because this is what happens at every public school my children have attended and this is what our current president even says. Now if you want to claim Bush doesn't know what he is talking about, go right ahead and say he is a clueless fool for insisting that public school students don't have the religious freedoms he claims. But please post intelligent and meaningful references, if they can be found, that way this encyclopedia won't look ignorant. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Jimmy, don't make emotional arguments to promote an editorial suggestion; as you say, it's embarrassing. Follow your own advice, such as, "You can do much better than that. If your claim can actually be supported . . ." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Uh. Jimmy's post is dated '''"June 11, 2008"'''. As you say he says, it's embarrassing. Jimmy has also been banned for all eternity more than two weeks ago. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:01, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

==Atheistic and secular==

The secularism of the US public schools promotes atheism. Let's not pretend otherwise. [[User:Human]], you do indeed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Public_schools&diff=prev&oldid=507180 risk your editing rights] to assert otherwise.

If you can find support for religion in any public school, you may add that to the counterexamples section (or start such a section). But the trend is clearly toward [[Atheism]], a positive '''denial''' of the existence of [[God]], along with [[Materialism]], an explicit denial of the reality of the [[supernatural]].

Do not use edit summaries as a debate forum. You know better than this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

''The secularism of the US public schools promotes atheism.'' This, I think may be true. But that's a different thing from saying the schools ARE atheist. If you take a look at the US Dept of Ed's Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools <ref>US Dept of Ed's Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools[http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html]</ref>, which is the government's official word on the subject, you get a pretty good idea of the governing principals and where the line is supposed to be drawn. (Of course, there are always school districts here and there who step over the line one way or another, usually with much fanfare in the press. This doesn't, however, change the fact that schools are ''supposed'' to follow the guidelines set forth by the Dept of Ed.) Some highlights:

*'''''The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer.''''' This, I would argue, is pretty much the definition of "secular". It's certainly not atheist.

*''Accordingly, the First Amendment '''forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government''' but '''protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals''', and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."''

* ''Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression."''

* ''"nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.
''
* ''Prayer During Noninstructional Time - Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities.''

* ''Organized Prayer Groups and Activities - Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and "see you at the pole" gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression.''

* ''Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees - Teachers may take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.''

* ''Moments of Silence - If a school has a "minute of silence" or other quiet periods during the school day, students are free to pray silently, or not to pray, during these periods of time.''

* ''Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments - Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.''

I think "secular" is the more accurate term, despite a few examples of schools which mistakenly restricted students' rights to prayer. Trends away from secularism, and so on, can be described in a paragraph later in the entry. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: "Secular" means: "1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>"[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular]

: None of those definitions describes the overwhelmingly [[atheistic]] leadership and culture of [[public schools]]. Students are more likely to hear God mentioned or worshiped in an atheistic country than in a public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Nitpick: My Circular Reasoning sense is tingling: You look at a definition for "secular", realize that it doesn't meet your assumption that the public schools are atheistic (and not secular) and then conclude that "secular" is not the right word. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:57, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Late comment: I'd prefer the term "nontheistic." "Atheistic" implies explicit denial of the existence of a higher being; "nontheistic" implies that the schools just don't address the concept. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Removal of Section on Famous Americans ==

There are ''so'' many things wrong with the section on famous Americans who have attended public school. How do you define "attended": is it graduates only, or those who have spent even a day in a public institution? How do you define "prominent American"? Politicians, musicians, artists, owners of large corporations, athletes, who counts? Also, note that the list would probably require several hundred pages, considering that virtually ever American who has a graduate-level education (GED-worthy) attended a public school, including a vast, vast majority of Americans that would be considered "prominent." And what's up with that statistic that claims that fewer prominent Americans have come out of the public school system since prayer was banned? There is absolutely no way that a claim like that can be tested, measured, or even looked at in a serious light. I vote to delete the section entirely. And mind you I have many, many friends who graduated from the public school system who are doing just fine, which is remarkable considering that I live in Los Angeles, which has one of the highest dropout rates in the country. I remember my mother still works at a particularly prominent school in Hollywood, and at the end of each year she takes several students who graduated out to lunch to congratulate them because it's such an achievement at some schools in the city. I don't think that has anything to do with prayer though (religious children fail to graduate just as often as secular ones). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 17:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)

This is the worst section on an even worse page. The list of post and pre 1962 section should be thousands of pages long! I'm going to delete it. I know it's going to be put back in a couple minutes though.

== Statistics ==

*A few comments on the recently-added statistics:
:*Illegal drugs: The survey that statistic comes from includes both public and private schools. (See [http://monitoringthefuture.org/purpose.html])
:*Teen pregnancy: The number is for one city in Virginia, and makes no distinction between public school, private school, and homeschooled teens.
:*Obesity: A similar comment. The number is for one school district.
:*Mental health: According to [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec1.html#table3_1 this] government website, an estimated 20% of people 9-17 years old have some sort of mental disorder. Since the source for the "almost 10%" statistic (I think it would be better just to say 8%, by the way) doesn't say what exactly it means by "mental health issues," there's really no way to determine what the significance of the number is. Also, that number is for one school district. It's not enough data to say the number applies to public school students in general.
:Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

:: Any study that includes public and private schools is going to be 90% public school, so the private school distinction is insignificant. If anything, private schools are better, which makes the real public school statistic ''even worse'' than reported. The teen pregnancy statistic is for public and private schools, not homeschoolers (where teen pregnancy rates are virtually 0). The government estimate on mental health is interesting but does not change the school statistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:57, 21 December 2008 (EST)

:::*The teen pregnancy statistic is for all teens in the relevant area - which includes homeschoolers. (You can find the data from [http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/HealthStats/stats.asp#data this page] on the VA department of health's website. Under "Data Tables," pick either 2007 table from the Teenage Pregnancies drop-down box.)
:::*No, the estimate doesn't change the school statistic; however, it does change its significance.
:::*You have failed to address my comments regarding the samples. Except for the illegal drugs statistic and the government mental health statistic, all the numbers I mentioned come from samples that were relatively small and not particularly diverse; you can't just assume those statistics are equal to those for the general public school population. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 21:06, 21 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You only challenge 4 out of the 11 points, and one of your 4 (the obesity statistic) can hardly be disputed. Just look at how fat public school kids are. Maybe the statistic is slightly off, but I could find 5 stories in 60 seconds decrying the obesity in public school kids.

:::: And that illustrates the problem with your comments. You're not showing a genuine interest in the crisis when you deny facts that you could easily confirm yourself and improve the entry with additional references. I'm not here to persuade someone determined not to be persuaded. I already suggest to parents that they get their kids out of public school, and yet still try to help those stuck in the system and still look for ways to improve the system for the kids. You, however, seem determined ''not'' to help.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:15, 21 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Because I don't challenge all of the statistics, my criticisms can't be taken seriously? Also, note that all I deny is that you are correctly interpreting the statistics. Finally, you still haven't responded to my comments regarding the samples. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 21:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

== Where is your proof? ==

Why did you insert that 77% statistic into the [[public school]] article? The article provided did not say that statistic. Where is your proof?
--[[User:Metzky|Metzky]] 20:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:Note: when stating "article" I mean the conservapedia article, but when I say "source", I mean the source that is cited.
:After reading the sources from the statistics, I have a major problems with what the article is claiming to have evidence of:
 
:1.One source says "In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent." (it is the link with the number "6"). However, this does '''not''' mean "77% do illegal drugs", as stated in the article. It simply means that, at one point in their life, 77% '''have done''' drugs. The difference in verb tense makes a huge difference. Note that "have done" can be anything as small as having one drink ''in their entire life'' or smoking marijuana ''once''.
:2.I was unable to find where the pregnancy rate of 10% came from. I read the entire article sourced for the statistic twice and was unable to find it. The only thing close to it was "In a school of 2,211 students, there are at least 70 girls who are soon-to-be or already mothers." This indicates a pregnancy rate of 3%, not 10%. Also, the statistic of about half getting abortions is not representative of the population, as there was only a sample size of 200 from Alexandria in Virginia.
:3.Also, the article sourced for "nearly 10% have mental health problems" specifically states in the second paragraph: "8 percent had mental health issues." 10% and 8% are huge differences in the world of statistics. There is no problem with stating "8%". Also, the study was on students in a Memphis school district. This means that the statistic is unable to be extrapolated to all of American public school students. Memphis students are not representative of the entire population of students, so no such claim is possible.
:4.The same goes for the 35% said to be obese. (Added in after originally posted [[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]][[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]] 21:23, 2 January 2009 (EST))
:5.The same error just mentioned is committed when stating "20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally". The statistic cited is for ''Ottowa County'' in Michigan. (not representative of the entire population)
:6.An even more egregious error is committed concerning the number of students who watch more than 3 hours of television. The national average that the source refers to '''is''' public school students. The 60% statistic is for ''Memphis'' students. The 35% is the national average for public school students.
:7.On bullying, the source states "Nationally, about 160,000 students miss school daily because they fear being bullied". When checking this, the source is '''completely''' wrong:
::*http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/09/06/bullies/index.html
::If you want a source that is not CNN, then:
::*http://books.google.com/books?id=D_LpPNZt3iMC&pg=PA461&lpg=PA461&dq=160,000+students+bully+one+day+year&source=web&ots=Ycyex5n4s6&sig=qlrlKQNjNIOScUryWSg048NbSlE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
:In reality, it is "Every year more than 160,000 students report missing some school because they are afraid." (added after originally posted [[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]][[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]] 21:32, 2 January 2009 (EST)) It is not ''every day'', but at least some every year. This includes simply ''being late'' in ''one day'' the entire year.
 
:Overall, the sources seem to be taken from where public schools are doing the '''worst''' rather than average public schools. The sample sizes are extremely small and are taken specifically from the regions where public schools are doing the worst. These are not representative of how the entire public school system is doing. The statistics have either been gravely misinterpreted or are being misconstrued on purpose by the person who wrote that part of the article. The article is very misleading.
:I hope this is fixed soon. [[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]][[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]] 21:19, 2 January 2009 (EST)

:: In response to point 1 above, drugs are addictive. Very few people do drugs only once. In response to point 2 above, please realize that boys don't get pregnant, and half of pregnant high school girls get an [[abortion]].

:: Guys, I stopped there. Raise the quality of your criticisms, please, if you want a response. And pick your best criticism rather than pretending that quantity is a substitute for quality. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:47, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::That's too bad. Numbers six and seven seem valid, if not the others. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:00, 2 January 2009 (EST)

If you want to help paint a clear statistical picture of US public schools, I'm ready to help. I know enough math (and logic) to keep both sides honest. But I'll tell you from the start, liberals are much more likely to make math errors and to believe what they want - than conservatives. The way they treat [[John Lott]] is a case in point. Another example is how many children "go to bed hungry each night".

Remember, the figures do not lie, but "liars figure". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:45, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:I'm guessing a good place to start would be to read the points that Andy won't. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:52, 2 January 2009 (EST)

:: No, Liam, a good place to start is to admit the basic errors in the criticism and take steps to prevent recurrence of more errors like them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:54, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::You already said you didn't read the whole thing. You say the first two are flawed, ok. But you literally can't know if there are errors in the rest. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:56, 2 January 2009 (EST)
::::I see your point in that my second point was flawed (I can't believe I forgot to take that into account), but that '''still only''' raises the pregnancy rate to 6%. This does not allow us to make the conclusion that there is a 10% pregnancy rate in '''all public schools'''. The statistic specifically applies to the school it was taken from because ''data was only taken from that particular school''.
:::::Let me elaborate. In statistics, there is a rule that before making a statement about a ''population'' (every person the statistic is about) that "the sample must be representative of the population". This means that samples for the statistic have to come from '''many''' locations. If data is ''not'' taken from many locations (that are relevant to the statistic), then the statistics develop '''bias''', or when the result given is not what is true in real life.
::::In context of my point about the 6% pregnancy rate, this means that it is O.K. for the result to be applied to where it came from: the Memphis school. There is no bias ''when taking it in that '''specific''' context''. However, when applying it to ''the entire country'', there is bias. Well, where does it come from? There wasn't bias when applying it to the school, so what is the problem with applying it to the entire country? Let me respond to those questions by giving an example:
::::*"A recent statistic showed that 1900 of 2000 randomly polled people in Washington D.C. are liberal. This means that 95% of ''the entire country'' is liberal."
::::This is obviously '''completely''' incorrect. The only thing that the statisticians can deduce from that is that 95% of people who live ''in Washington D.C.'' are liberals. No information was taken from Texas, Kentucky, New York, Maine, California, Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.. Data can only be said to represent our country if it is taken from a variety of locations.
::::That is why I have a problem with a variety of the statistics: these were a ''local'' studies rather than ''national'' studies (except for bullying and drugs).
::::Thank you for taking the time to read this. [[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]][[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]] 07:36, 3 January 2009 (EST)

You've got the cart before the horse, William. How about helping us with a series of articles on [[statistics]]? The elementary rules you mentioned should be outlined so clearly that all you'd have to do is refer readers to the article in question. (Absent that, your comments might take on a "lecturing" tone here.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:48, 3 January 2009 (EST)
:Being a teacher yourself, you may know of the "lecture reflex". I'll take you up on your offer. [[User:WilliamBeason|William Beason]][[User talk:WilliamBeason|talk]] 08:00, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Good. In the mean time ([[average|no pun intended]]), the [[teen pregnancy]] rate would seem to be 30 to 35 percent - not 10 percent. This is calculating pregnancies per girl (up to age 19) - not some annualized rate.

But advocates on both sides of a [[social issue]] have been known to magnify or minimize a problem. Read [[Darrell Huff]]'s "[[How to Lie with Statistics]]" for some tips on how to fight back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:04, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::Cutting in here for a moment to address Andy's point that 77% admitting to trying it once equates to 77% doing drugs routinely because drugs are addictive. It's not that black and white. Marijuana is not addictive. MDMA is not addictive. LSD is not addictive. And I can guarantee these three make up most of a student's drug intake.--[[User:RonAbdul|RonAbdul]] 16:03, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Textbook CBN story==

This might fit in here or some other article as an external link.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bARRmEpH8 CBN story on Harvard University recommending anti-Israel, anti-European textbooks]

: Great point. Please add to this entry where you think best. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Public school culture

2010-02-16T04:35:46Z

Amatthews:

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-02-15T23:40:55Z

Amatthews:

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]]<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>
# Wikipedia changes "Constitutional Convention," which drafted the U.S. Constitution, into the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention" that dilutes its significance. An internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors insist on redirecting visitors to the obscure term.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].
# On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628</ref> This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed, ironically by a conservative editor.
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible here <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335800503&oldid=335420724</ref> where a userbox saying ''This user supports heterosexual marriage only is removed''. This user was later blocked and the official reason was for uploading a copyrighted image, but other users have uploaded many copyrighted images but who are not conservative and thus aren't blocked <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wad572</ref>.
#[[Barack Obama]] lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion</ref> This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Owner blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great sadness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]
# Wikipedia's article on the British Actor Sir Alec Guinness repeats a malicious story that has been proven false to suggest that he was a homosexual.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life Wikipedia]</ref> It then suggests that the biography on Guinness by Piers Paul Read confirms that he was bi-sexual. This too is false, although Read examines the rumors and speculates as to Guinness' feelings, there is absolutely no proof that Guinness was homosexual or bi-sexual. Speculation is largely contrieved from his knowing several British actors and directors who were and a rumor started by a woman who mistook John Gielgud as Guinness.

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Green Lantern

2009-12-25T00:53:02Z

Amatthews:

'''Green Lantern''' is the name of a [[superhero]] used by 5 people, published by [[DC Comics]]. Each Green Lantern has a green ring that gives them the powers of flight, green energy beams and longevity. Up until 2005 and the [[Green Lantern: Rebirth]] storyline, the Green Lantern rings were useless against the color yellow

==Alan Scott==
The first Green Lantern, '''Alan Scott''', was created by [[Batman]] co-creator, writer [[Bill Finger]] and artist [[Martin Nodell]]. He first made his debut in ''All American Comics'' #16, published in July 1940. This one is called the "Golden Age Green Lantern." In stories from the 1980s to the present, Scott was established as the Earth-Two Green Lantern.

==Hal Jordan==
The most famous Green Lantern, '''Hal Jordan''', first made his debut in ''Showcase'' #22, published in September 1959. Jordan was a [[USAF]] test pilot who got his ring (and his powers from a dying alien he discovered on one of his tests. This one is the most-often seen, appearing in crossover comics, television animation, and video games.

==Guy Gardner==
The third Green Lantern, '''Guy Gardner''', was introduced in 1968. In his most well-known appearances, he is a brash, rude man, but still a hero.

==John Stewart==
The first [[African American]] Green Lantern, '''John Stewart''', was introduced in 1971. He is best known for his appearance in the animated TV show ''[[Justice League]]''.

==Kyle Rayner==
The fifth Green Lantern, '''Kyle Rayner''', was introduced in 1994 during the "Emerald Twilight" storyline.
[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]

Green Lantern

2009-12-25T00:37:53Z

Amatthews: /* Kyle Rayner */

'''Green Lantern''' is the name of a [[superhero]] used by 5 people, published by [[DC Comics]]. Each Green Lantern has a green ring that gives them the powers of flight, green energy beams and longevity. The Green Lantern powers are useless against anything that is yellow.

==Alan Scott==
The first Green Lantern, '''Alan Scott''', was created by [[Batman]] co-creator, writer [[Bill Finger]] and artist [[Martin Nodell]]. He first made his debut in ''All American Comics'' #16, published in July 1940. This one is called the "Golden Age Green Lantern." In stories from the 1980s to the present, Scott was established as the Earth-Two Green Lantern.

==Hal Jordan==
The most famous Green Lantern, '''Hal Jordan''', first made his debut in ''Showcase'' #22, published in September 1959. Jordan was a [[USAF]] test pilot who got his ring (and his powers from a dying alien he discovered on one of his tests. This one is the most-often seen, appearing in crossover comics, television animation, and video games.

==Guy Gardner==
The third Green Lantern, '''Guy Gardner''', was introduced in 1968. In his most well-known appearances, he is a brash, rude man, but still a hero.

==John Stewart==
The first [[African American]] Green Lantern, '''John Stewart''', was introduced in 1971. He is best known for his appearance in the animated TV show ''[[Justice League]]''.

==Kyle Rayner==
The fifth Green Lantern, '''Kyle Rayner''', was introduced in 1994 during the "Emerald Twilight" storyline.
[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]

Green Lantern

2009-12-25T00:03:13Z

Amatthews:

'''Green Lantern''' is the name of a [[superhero]] used by 5 people, published by [[DC Comics]]. Each Green Lantern has a green ring that gives them the powers of flight, green energy beams and longevity. The Green Lantern powers are useless against anything that is yellow.

==Alan Scott==
The first Green Lantern, '''Alan Scott''', was created by [[Batman]] co-creator, writer [[Bill Finger]] and artist [[Martin Nodell]]. He first made his debut in ''All American Comics'' #16, published in July 1940. This one is called the "Golden Age Green Lantern." In stories from the 1980s to the present, Scott was established as the Earth-Two Green Lantern.

==Hal Jordan==
The most famous Green Lantern, '''Hal Jordan''', first made his debut in ''Showcase'' #22, published in September 1959. Jordan was a [[USAF]] test pilot who got his ring (and his powers from a dying alien he discovered on one of his tests. This one is the most-often seen, appearing in crossover comics, television animation, and video games.

==Guy Gardner==
The third Green Lantern, '''Guy Gardner''', was introduced in 1968. In his most well-known appearances, he is a brash, rude man, but still a hero.

==John Stewart==
The first [[African American]] Green Lantern, '''John Stewart''', was introduced in 1971. He is best known for his appearance in the animated TV show ''[[Justice League]]''.

==Kyle Rayner==
The fifth Green Lantern, '''Kyle Rayner''', was introduced in 1994 after [[Hal Jordan]] went mad after the destruction of his home town, Coast City.

[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]

Green Lantern

2009-12-24T23:55:01Z

Amatthews: /* Guy Gardner */

'''Green Lantern''' is the name of a [[superhero]] used by 5 people, published by [[DC Comics]]. Each Green Lantern has a green ring that gives them the powers of flight, green energy beams and longevity. The Green Lantern powers are useless against anything that is yellow.

==Alan Scott==
The first Green Lantern, '''Alan Scott''', was created by [[Batman]] co-creator, writer [[Bill Finger]] and artist [[Martin Nodell]]. He first made his debut in ''All American Comics'' #16, published in July 1940. This one is called the "Golden Age Green Lantern." In stories from the 1980s to the present, Scott was established as the Earth-Two Green Lantern.

==Hal Jordan==
The most famous Green Lantern, '''Hal Jordan''', first made his debut in ''Showcase'' #22, published in September 1959. Jordan was a [[USAF]] test pilot who got his ring (and his powers from a dying alien he discovered on one of his tests. This one is the most-often seen, appearing in crossover comics, television animation, and video games.

==Guy Gardner==
The third Green Lantern, '''Guy Gardner''', was introduced in 1968. In his most well-known appearances, he is a brash, rude man, but still a hero.

==John Stewart==
The first [[African American]] Green Lantern, '''John Stewart''', was introduced in 1971. He is best known for his appearance in the animated TV show ''[[Justice League]]''.

[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]

Green Lantern

2009-12-24T23:54:11Z

Amatthews: /* John Stewart */

'''Green Lantern''' is the name of a [[superhero]] used by 5 people, published by [[DC Comics]]. Each Green Lantern has a green ring that gives them the powers of flight, green energy beams and longevity. The Green Lantern powers are useless against anything that is yellow.

==Alan Scott==
The first Green Lantern, '''Alan Scott''', was created by [[Batman]] co-creator, writer [[Bill Finger]] and artist [[Martin Nodell]]. He first made his debut in ''All American Comics'' #16, published in July 1940. This one is called the "Golden Age Green Lantern." In stories from the 1980s to the present, Scott was established as the Earth-Two Green Lantern.

==Hal Jordan==
The most famous Green Lantern, '''Hal Jordan''', first made his debut in ''Showcase'' #22, published in September 1959. Jordan was a [[USAF]] test pilot who got his ring (and his powers from a dying alien he discovered on one of his tests. This one is the most-often seen, appearing in crossover comics, television animation, and video games.

==Guy Gardner==
The third Green Lantern, '''Guy Gardner''', was introduced in the 1970s. In his most well-known appearances, he is a brash, rude man, but still a hero.

==John Stewart==
The first [[African American]] Green Lantern, '''John Stewart''', was introduced in 1971. He is best known for his appearance in the animated TV show ''[[Justice League]]''.

[[Category: DC Comics Superheroes]]