Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-29T23:11:44Z

BobMack: Undo revision 790380 by TK (Talk)Provided citations on talk page - I hope that's enough

Below is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales contact the atheist Jimmy Wales] about any biases you find at Wikipedia. And please be sure to ask Mr. Wales why the Conservapedia [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[atheism]] articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.
 
# 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]
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
# 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> Where on earth did that [[liberal denial]] come from?
# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[fetal pain]], and instead redirects visitors to a different entry that denies the obvious pain experienced by unborn children during an [[abortion]]. Nine peer-reviewed studies confirm that there is fetal pain beginning at 20 weeks, as presented during legislative hearings in 2010 on the Nebraska [[Abortion Pain Prevention Act]], but Wikipedia insists on [[liberal denial]] and citation to only a few implausible, pro-abortion claims.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain</ref>
# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers. In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia includes the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref> Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.
# In a most deceitful, [[Fascism#Inspiration_for_the_New_Deal|fascist]] political tactic [[Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] biography on [[Barack Obama]] discusses in detail his early childhood from when his parents met in 1960 to 1994 when Obama first served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then the article skips 1995 when Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of a [[Marxist]] political party called the [[New Party]],<ref>http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career</ref> and it jumps ahead to after "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Political_career:_1996.E2.80.932008</ref> The stink of intellectual corruption in Wikipedia reeks of deceit, censoring an entire year of Barack Obama's life as a candidate before he got elected.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama#Illinois_State_Senate_.281995-2005.29</ref>
# [[Barack Obama]] cannot give a coherent speech without reading from a [[teleprompter]],<ref>Obama "uses a teleprompter during most speeches and even brief remarks" [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/when-obamas-teleprompter-crashed-mid-speech_100217852.html]</ref> and even had two of them set up in an elementary school just to talk to reporters there. But Wikipedia's lengthy entry about Obama does not mention the teleprompter, not even once.
# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]].<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>
# When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. Since 2005, they have named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Convention&diff=31214002&oldid=31213911] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention ''Center''" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].
# On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628</ref> This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed, ironically by a conservative editor.
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible.
#[[Barack Obama]] lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion</ref> This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great sadness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]
# Wikipedia's article on the British Actor Sir Alec Guinness repeats a malicious story that has been proven false to suggest that he was a homosexual.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life Wikipedia]</ref> It then suggests that the biography on Guinness by Piers Paul Read confirms that he was bi-sexual. This too is false, although Read examines the rumors and speculates as to Guinness' feelings, there is absolutely no proof that Guinness was homosexual or bi-sexual. Speculation is largely contrieved from his knowing several British actors and directors who were and a rumor started by a woman who mistook John Gielgud as Guinness.
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completly ignoring Northern Irish covservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by it's unoffical slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalising the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unoffical" and often calling it derogetary names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref>. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
==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]

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

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-28T11:38:44Z

BobMack: /* #12 - Not a good example */ Add other example.

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "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." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==
Links:
*[[Hans Bethe]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Manhattan Project]]
*[[atomic bomb]]
*[[quantum physics]]
*[[Nobel Prize]]
*[[SDI]]
*[[nuclear proliferation]]

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

::::::::More generally, it's a [[liberal trick]] to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::::That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of [[Lenski]]'s work and wrote the following...."
:::::::::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::::No, we don't overrely on "experts", see [[best of the public]]. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

== Stats? ==

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

:I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of ''accuracy'' on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:I also think this page could be looked at: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

::Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of ''8 times'' as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate ==

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

:Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

::the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example? ==

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== Thank you Conservapedia ==

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

== Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article ==

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Too long! ==

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Vladimir Lenin ==

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? [[User:msirois|msirois]] 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

:That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the [[communists]] poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== #12 - Not a good example ==

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335552970&oldid=335183331]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KAPITALIST88&oldid=335767502#Blocked_3] Thanks. [[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-27T23:15:36Z

BobMack: /* #12 - Not a good example */ Sorry - here is the source.

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Negative Words ==

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are using. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

===Racistpedia===
I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
:I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "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." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

:::You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

== Cover up ==

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Messy ==

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

== o3o ==

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight

:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Concealing facts==

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

==a question==

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

== Jim Pouillon ==

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]

==I beg to differ==

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]

Worth including?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Possible Bias ==

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

== Wind turbine line ==

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Hans Bethe and SDI ==
Links:
*[[Hans Bethe]]
*[[John Kerry]]
*[[Manhattan Project]]
*[[atomic bomb]]
*[[quantum physics]]
*[[Nobel Prize]]
*[[SDI]]
*[[nuclear proliferation]]

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

::::::This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

::::::::More generally, it's a [[liberal trick]] to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::::That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of [[Lenski]]'s work and wrote the following...."
:::::::::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::::No, we don't overrely on "experts", see [[best of the public]]. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

== Stats? ==

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

:I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of ''accuracy'' on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:I also think this page could be looked at: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

::Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of ''8 times'' as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate ==

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

:Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

::the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example? ==

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

== Thank you Conservapedia ==

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

== Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article ==

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Too long! ==

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Vladimir Lenin ==

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? [[User:msirois|msirois]] 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

:That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the [[communists]] poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== #12 - Not a good example ==

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335552970&oldid=335183331]. Thanks. [[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-27T23:03:54Z

BobMack: Remove example - not in keeping with Christian ideals.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2010-06-27T23:01:56Z

BobMack: /* #12 - Not a good example */ new section

User:BobMack

2010-06-27T22:44:55Z

BobMack: Create user page

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User Wikipedian}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User talk self}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
I am Robert (Bob) Mack and I have accepted [[Jesus]] as my Lord and Savior and I strive to become a better person through [[prayer]] and my [[Pentecostalism|church]]. I believe that if more people followed the [[Ten Commandments]], our world would be a better place. I still edit at Wikipedia, but I'm looking for a God centered forum to help advance the holy word of God.