Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2013-05-30T13:25:01Z

Asdfconservative: /* Yes */ the "secular" anti-christian bias is a plague on our society

{{debate}}

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago. {{unsigned|Rhompa}}

==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007

I was under the impression inoculating you with morality is the responsibility of your parents and the community. -Sam

The moment people forsake religion, or God in a society, ancient or modern, it is the moment the society becomes rotten, like US now.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 12:24, 25 December 2008 (EST)

The fact that religion is so common among humans shows that it must have evolutionary significance. Different human societies and nations are in competition, just as surely as different species are. Humans are social animals and are most effective when working together. Religion is one of the drivers for social cohesiveness and co-operation. Christianity is one of the most effective religions because it promotes tolerance, is against violence ("turn the other cheek"), promotes respect for authority ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), promotes forgiveness (the parable of the prodigal son), claims an omniscient God who sees all transgressions, and promisses reward for virtue and everlasting punishment for anti-social behaviour. The Koran (and the Old Testament)is more violent and less forgiving - and Islamic (and Jewish) societies are generally more violent and less successful than Christian ones. Ideally the New Testament should be taught in Public schools and the Old Testament should be dumped. - Mountainboy November 14 2012
<div style="display:none"><div style="display:none"><div style="display:none">

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.

'''Response'''You sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 24 March 2007
--Facio

Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam

:Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBrit

oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007

There are good morale people and there are bad inmorale people. There are good religous people and there are bad religous people. Religion does not make you a better or more morale person. Sometimes people use religion as guidlines or something that can scare them into doing the right thing. But people know the difference between right and wrong and if you need religion to tell you that and religion to scare you into being good then you're probably either an ignoramus (for not knowing the diff. between right and wrong) or a bad person in complete denial only behaving well to get your ticket into heaven and eternal bliss (as if you're personality is going to be somehow different in the afterlife). - DMiller

Ever wonder why it is that human life was short and miserable prior to the enlightenment, while since the enlightenment, average human quality of life has been improved exponentially? Ever wonder how every remarkable improvement of individuals and society happened in spite of religious dogma? If religion had had its way, without he input of science and humanism, we would still be in a world where life expectancy is in the 20s, a small cut is a death sentence via infection, and people who criticize religion, like me, would be burned at the stake. Religion has had thousands of years to attempt to prove itself necessary, something that it has failed at miserably every time.
Also, for those who posit that Christianity is necessary, but none of the others are, ask yourself: would I rather be alive today, or in the 15th century?
=skb
= Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Evanave|Evanave]] 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).

Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:

"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.

"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.

Moving on...

There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)

What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!

Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?

I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.

So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.

~Evan
:Lack of evidence does not speak ''against'' the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; ''knowing'' (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the ''only'' kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
==Humanist==
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth.
I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid).
(We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam

==Maybe not==
Not that it's not relevant, its just, it shouldn't play a large role. Relgion is like your thoughts, its yours, you make it according to your own personal moral values and based on the teachings of those before you. Getting religions entangled with people is quite dangerous some times, or annoying at others. Religion is for you and those who believe with you and those who wish to believe, none others.

== Atheism religion will play a smaller role in modern society while Christianity will increase ==

See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/resources-on-rise-of-global.html Rise of global Christianity and creationism and the decline of global atheism and agnosticism] and [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Question evolution! campaign]] I trust that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Democratic Party

2013-05-30T13:23:27Z

Asdfconservative: /* 2007-2010 */ how the democrats supported slavery

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''', more grammatically called the "[[Democrat Party]]," is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-abortion]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century — when it supported [[slavery]] — the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. This policy of class warfare seeks to unite the moochers under the Democrat banner against the American ideals of hard work and a right to one's income.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats use their control of the public school system to brainwash kids with liberal ideas, and seek to restrict conservatives from homeschooling their children with sound political, scientific, and moral ideas.

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or marriage. On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex marriage.<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]
<div style="display:none">

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Jeb Bush

2013-05-30T13:18:41Z

Asdfconservative: formatting

{{Officeholder
|name=Jeb Bush
|image=JebBush02.jpg‎
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Columba Bush
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Florida
|number=43rd
|terms=January 5, 1999 – January 2, 2007
|preceded=[[Kenneth Hood MacKay|Buddy MacKay]]
|succeeded=[[Charlie Crist]]
}}
}}

'''John Ellis "Jeb" Bush''' (born February 11, 1953), age {{age|1953|02|11}}, is a businessman and a former governor of the State of [[Florida]]. He is the third child and second son of former President [[George H. W. Bush]] and his wife, former [[First Lady]] [[Barbara Bush]]. He is the younger brother of former President [[George W. Bush]]. Jeb Bush was the first Republican to win a second term as Florida’s governor, and he left office with a 60% approval rating.<ref name="WashTimes">[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/jeb-senate-bid-would-turn-on-rehabilitating-bush-b/ Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?] The ''Washington Times'' Dec. 30, 2008</ref>
== Early life and education ==
Bush was born in [[Midland]], [[Texas]] where his father ran an oil drilling company. When he was six years old, the family relocated to [[Houston]], Texas. He was a budding athlete, enjoying [[baseball]] and [[tennis]]. He went to a public elementary school, and later to a private school. When he was in eighth grade, George H. W. Bush won a seat in [[Congress]] and moved to Washington, DC. The Bush children stayed in Houston with another family to finish the school year, and spent most summers and holidays at the family estate, located at Kennebunkport, [[Maine]]. He then enrolled at Phillips Andover Academy in [[Massachusetts]], already attended by his brother, George. Jeb Bush made the honor roll his first year. <div style="display:none"><ref>[http://www.who2.com/jebbush.html Jeb Bush Biography]</ref>

== Private sector ==
Jeb Bush and and his family moved to Florida in 1981, where he joined the Codina Group, a real estate development company.

== Political career ==
Bush became Secretary of Commerce under Governor [[Bob Martinez]] in 1987 and was the [[Republican]] nominee for governor in 1994, losing to incumbent Lawton Chiles. In 1998 he ran again and won, becoming governor of Florida at the same time his brother George W. was governor of Texas. He was re-elected in 2002, defeating [[Democrat]] William McBride (who had upset former [[Attorney General]] [[Janet Reno]] in the Democratic primary election). Bush could not run for re-election to a third term in 2006, because of term limits; another Republican, [[Charlie Crist]], was elected to succeed him. After eight years, Jeb Bush left office as one of the most popular and prominent governors in state history. While speculation and public support for a 2016 Presidential run still exists, it was significantly dampened when [[Barbara Bush]] stated in an April 2013 interview<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51667537#51667537</ref> that she felt "We've had enough Bushes" and continuing "He's the most qualified, but I don't think he'll run."<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/weve-had-enough-bushes-barbara-bush-urges-jeb-bush-not-to-run-in-2016-video-94733/</ref>

== Post-political career ==

Bush joined the board of directors of Tenet Healthcare, the biggest publicly-traded hospital company in the United States, in April 2007.<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/12/news/newsmakers/bush.reut/index.htm Bush] April 12, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/BREAKINGNEWS/70412027/1086 Florida Today]</ref>

== Personal life ==

Bush met his wife, Columba, while teaching English as part of a university exchange program in Leon, Guanajato, [[Mexico]] in 1971. Columba was born in Leon in 1954. The two were married on February 23, 1974, shortly after Bush graduated from the [[University of Texas]] with a degree in Latin American Affairs. They have three children: George (known as George P., born 1976), Noelle (born 1977) and John (known as Jebby, born 1983). The couple currently resides in Coral Gables, [[Florida]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Bush, John Ellis "Jeb"}}

[[category:Florida]]
[[category:Florida Governors]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-05-30T13:04:44Z

Asdfconservative: /* Pornography / Sexuality */ WMF

This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated 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> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==

Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter. Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview. (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]
#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. 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 "Abortion debate" article.<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]] 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]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>

=== Anti-Christianity ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]

# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]
# [[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".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.

=== Bestiality/zoophilia ===

See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

=== Conservapedia smears ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# [[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]].
# 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>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>[dead link]
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref>

=== Ethnic and racial bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</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 has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

=== Gender bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed crticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

=== Global warming ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# 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>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}</ref>

=== Homosexuality ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#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.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizzards season had similar problems.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>

=== Internet policies ===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}</ref> So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

=== Liberal Politicians ===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... "progressivism": "By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
=== Obama ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# 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>
===Paid Editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]
===Pornography / Sexuality===
Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref> The WMF is unable to control the spread of amateur pornography via its sites.

=== Public Policy in the United States ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# 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.

=== Science and Evolution ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#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.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>

=== Conspiracy Theories ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#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]
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#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.
#[[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>
# 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>
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.

=== General/Uncategorized ===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. <ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability." Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when in fact it has never been played "at the Olympics." Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}</ref> The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article "Cannabis reform at the international level" referred to the "U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration" instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&diff=481706462&oldid=441608281</ref> The phrase had been inserted by User "Dala11a".

==See also==
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]

==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]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.

==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.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-05-30T13:01:19Z

Asdfconservative: "He" should not be used, implys Wales is God

This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated 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> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==

Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter. Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview. (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]
#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. 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 "Abortion debate" article.<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]] 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]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>

=== Anti-Christianity ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]

# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]
# [[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".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.

=== Bestiality/zoophilia ===

See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

=== Conservapedia smears ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# [[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]].
# 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>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>[dead link]
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref>

=== Ethnic and racial bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</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 has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

=== Gender bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed crticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

=== Global warming ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# 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>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}</ref>

=== Homosexuality ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#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.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizzards season had similar problems.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>

=== Internet policies ===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}</ref> So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

=== Liberal Politicians ===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... "progressivism": "By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
=== Obama ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# 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>
===Paid Editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]
===Pornography / Sexuality===
Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>

=== Public Policy in the United States ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# 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.

=== Science and Evolution ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#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.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>

=== Conspiracy Theories ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#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]
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#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.
#[[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>
# 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>
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.

=== General/Uncategorized ===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. <ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability." Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when in fact it has never been played "at the Olympics." Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}</ref> The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article "Cannabis reform at the international level" referred to the "U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration" instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&diff=481706462&oldid=441608281</ref> The phrase had been inserted by User "Dala11a".

==See also==
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]

==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]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.

==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.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category: Wikipedia]]