Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2013-08-01T20:21:30Z

GRuban: refs and dates of Kern and Livingston issues

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[Image:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Phyllis Schlafly]]
This article lists examples of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Bias in Wikipedia]], as it relates to Conservative Politicians and Personalities:
#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>[dead link
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe]
# On June 21, 2012, an IP added an allegation to the biography of [[Bob Livingston]] saying that he was a "part of a broad criminal conspiracy involving Turkish operatives and Representatives Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, and Tom Lantos."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=498647198</ref> This remained in the article until 2013.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=556359990</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref>
#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>
#''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> Conservative [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater. Although this exclusion is accurate, it demonstrates a [[double standard]] when comparing liberals and conservatives. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</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 though the reviewer 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. The Schlafly article has been repeatedly vadalized.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=449399938&oldid=448715966|author=Mooreturns|date=Sept. 9, 2011|title=Phyllis Schlafly}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=next&oldid=351501626</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=319693606&oldid=319410037</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[John Lott]], a respected conservative commentator and academic, cites supposed errors in Lott's characterization of [[liberal bias]] against gun owners in his book ''More Guns, Less Crime''. In fact, Lott's figures are accurate, and Wikipedia's sanctimonious claim of "bias" for his exposure of liberal media bias smacks of [[liberal hypocrisy]]. The rest of the entry is also filled with other unfounded smears and accusations attempting to silence his factual conservatism, characteristic of Wikipedia's [[liberal censorship]]. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</ref>
# Despite Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neo#Neologisms policy on not including "neologisms"], the disgusting and hateful term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum] is listed on Wikipedia and ranks #2 in Google. This was a smear term specifically invented by gay rights activist [[Dan Savage]] to be derogatory of Republican [[Presidential_Election_2012|Presidential candidate]] [[Rick Santorum]]. Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons also is said to restrict material that may cause "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum harm to the subject]." The page has existed for five years, was nominated for deletion, but all the liberal editors of Wikipedia had their say, and the article has been kept. The article was also repeatedly nominated for "good article" status.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29/GA1</ref>
# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers. In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include 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.
# [[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]] 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>.
#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]] 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>
# [[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>
#On July 28, 2010, the United States was listed as a "belligerent" fighting on the side of Iraq in Wikipedia's "Iran-Iraq War" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=375898707&oldid=375895692</ref> On July 15, 2010, [[Ronald Reagan]] was listed under "commanders and leaders" as a commander of Iraqi forces, alongside Saddam Hussein and his thugs.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=368133799&oldid=368122576</ref>
# 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]] 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 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]] 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 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'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 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>)
#Wikipedia reported on the [[Glen Beck]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size "Restoring Honor rally"] with an emphasis on the dispute over the estimates of the size of the crowd. Although Beck claimed 500,000 attended, Wikipedia reported that "a scientific estimate placed the crowd size around 87,000, while media reports varied dramatically from tens of thousands to 500,000." In contrast, Wikipedia's coverage of the [[Jon Stewart]]/[[Stephen Colbert]] "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" merely reported "About 215,000 people attended the rally, according to aerial photography analysis by AirPhotosLive.com for CBS News." without giving any conflicting estimates.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear&oldid=504295774</ref>
#The Wikipedia article on the [[Council for National Policy]] cites to liberal sources critical of the CNP pointing out its private membership lists, closed meetings and litigation involving its tax exemption, without also citing to conservative sources that view the CNP in a more favorable light.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy&oldid=508133295|accessdate=August 23, 2012|title=Council for National Policy}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about media sources are biased towards the liberal media. In its entry on [[Fox News]], Fox's conservatism is mentioned in the first paragraph<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news</ref>, but its first paragraph on liberally slanted CNN offers no such information. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn</ref>
#Although his speech at the [[2012 Republican National Convention]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ was a clever one], Wikipedia catered to the liberal media, which hyped and mocked his speech as ridiculous and detrimental to the [[Republican Party|Republican]] cause, by creating a whole article on his appearance.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention Wikipedia: Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention]</ref> Even though the famous actor already had a long section in his article on politics, Wikipedia felt it was necessary to create a whole new article to further the left's ridicule of him.
# [[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>
# [[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]] 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>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Media]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-08-01T20:07:29Z

GRuban: /* Conservative personalities and politicians */ Reference & dates for bad Sally Kern photo

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

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

For example, Swindle wrote:

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

The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," He has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

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

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

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>

=== Anti-Christianity ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]
#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.

=== Bestiality/zoophilia ===

See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

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

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

# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

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

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>[dead link]
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref>

=== Ethnic and racial bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

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

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

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

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}</ref>

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

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizzards season had similar problems.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>

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

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

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

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

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
===Paid Editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]
===Pornography / Sexuality===
Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>

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

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.

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

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>

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

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

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

#Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

=== Song excerpt ===

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

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

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

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

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-08-01T18:52:41Z

GRuban: /* Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia */ sign

{| 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)

:As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)

::I originally started editing Wikipedia about 8 months after Ed Poor, Logan. Under my original account name I racked up about double the edits than I have made to CP. What you say might have been true the first year or two of Wikipedia's existence, but certainly it is no longer true. Anyone with a liberal bias (which accounts to 90% of the administrators) and 75% of the editors, has a distinct advantage, even using acceptable sources, as the liberal-thinkers there will offer their own conflicting sources and through the device of "consensus" simply out-vote the more conservative users. If you really believe what you say, make an account under another name, edit everything from a conservative point of view, and watch the high-jinx ensue. I don't think you will be happy with the results.... --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:27, 9 August 2010 (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)

:I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

:: It's been several months since I posted this, and I was able to break up most of the article into smaller articles. I don't get to conservapedia much these days: frankly I prefer being on Wikipedia and trying to thwart their libral agenda. So I'm asking: '''can someone else please help to split this article into smaller articles, in the same manner that I did this?''' I'd really like to see this completed. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 14:07, 16 October 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)

== "Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels ==

Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned.

Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (about as "radical left wing" as you can get.) Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe an extremely radical left-wing group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink 
--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 
21:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)

:Superb example. Could you go ahead and add it as the top of the content entry here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 27 December 2010 (EST)

:: I am *really* new here (first attempt at posting) I am not following what you mean regarding "top of the content entry"--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 21:32, 27 December 2010 (EST)

::It's because Wikipedia abandoned their one, primary rule: Neutral Point of View. We know it, they know it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:27, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== Gatekeepers removing Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters from lists of Progressives who have served in U. S. Congress ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism 

Last year, I added Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine waters to the list of notable current/former Congress members who were progressives. My original addition lasted a few months, then were removed without explanation. I re-added them a couple weeks ago, and editors started immediately removing. I brought up issue on the Discussion page, where I included iron-clad quotes of Obama and Clinton describing themselves as progressives, and noted that Waters has been in the Progressive caucus since the 1990's. I am now in an edit war with leftist editors desperately trying to keep those three names off the list.--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 18:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)

== Jared Loughner ==

Hello,
Just an observation, Wikipedia does refer to Loughner as a "nihilistic atheist". I feel that his entry should be reworded to reflect how Wikipedia glosses over the fact that this attributed to his actions. Just thinking aloud. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)

: It appears to me that Wikipedia added "nihilistic" only after we criticized it here. The history file on Wikipedia shows that it was an addition late today, and you might be interested in checking the precise timing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

::That's a great observation Andy! It's very pleasing to see that finally the conservative voice is being heard by the liberals at wikipedia. [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Gender bias and netball ==

I edited the entries regarding netball and gender email lists under gender bias a bit to attempt to make them more accurate as to what happened at WP. The banned WP editor wasn't banned for his edits on the article, he was banned for attempting to "out" an editor to her supposed real-life employer and for harassment. I also removed individual editors' names because it doesn't really matter ''who'' did the edits, just that they occurred.

== Out of Date Examples ==

Considering how long this list has been around and how extensive it is, there are naturally a few claims that aren't necessarily correct anymore. I found two- 34 and 35, which are about the articles "North American Union" and "Eritrea". I was going to correct it but the spam filter won't allow it. I suspect that there also may be a few other examples that have gone out of date, I think the list might need to be refreshed a bit.--[[User:Pencil|Pencil]] 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST)

== The "F" word appears 7,000 times. ==

...and the "J" word ("Jesus") appears 47,959 times! [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 09:37, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:Perhaps, but do you think that word belongs in an encyclopedia at all?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:02, 23 December 2011 (EST)
::Yes. It exists, it has a history, people use it. It belongs in an encyclopedia as much as do other unsavory words/ideas such as "murder." [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 10:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:::It has as much educational value as toilet water. The number for "F" is 32,000+ if you select all search fields. Biased toward the lowest common denominator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)
::::Jpatt said it well. Wikipedia is rife with anti-intellectual bickering and habitual swearing.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:31, 23 December 2011 (EST)

== Experts? ==

<blockquote>
"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.'"[73]
</blockquote>

I'm a bit confused about this. Thus is it arguing that Wikipedia adopts a [[Best of the Public]] approach? [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:46, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:I've just had a flick through the rest of these - this article is absolutely ridiculous and half of them should be removed simply on common sense. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

== Redundancy ==

Why is there such a vast amount of examples under "General/Uncategorized"? The point that Wikipedia is left-leaning is very quickly proven; there is no reason to have 60+ examples. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 15:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:If there are duplicate examples, feel free to delete them. This page is not protected. As for not having too many examples, as an encyclopedia, it is necessary that we list all new biases in Wikipedia; indeed, we must continuously show that Wikipedia is biased by having plenty of fresh examples. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::It's just that most of the examples are informal and rude (calling policies "silly" multiple times) and seems to bash Wikipedia just out of spite. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 16:03, 30 December 2011 (EST)

The General/Uncategorized, by my understanding, is not supposed to be there. People should move it to the right page. I worked on this a bit a few months ago. I'm back now. Will try to do more. [[User:RickTx|RickTx]] 16:46, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

== Ethnocentrism ==

Hey,

Have you guys taken a look at the ethnocentrism category on Wikipedia? They have labeled "American exceptionalism" under the category of ethnocentrism and they label it as "nationalism" and are very biased against the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethoncentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/category:ethoncentrism. You will find American exceptionalism listed there. Among other things I noticed on Wikipedia. They label Creationism under the category of denialism. They have a creation myths category on there, where they label Creationism as a myth. I'm sure that would of interest to you people.

They label Creation Science under the category of Pseudoscience. Are you paying attention? How come none of this stuff has been talked about?
==Page organization==
How about pushing the misc. examples into a separate subpage and then moving the three best examples from each subpage back to the main example list? I suspect most users will just go to the misc. examples and not read the better examples just because they have been sorted by subject matter. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

:Sounds great. Pleaes improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:17, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
::I am starting but it will take a bit of time to do correctly. Thanks, Andy. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:38, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Any comments or feedback? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Far-left far-right politics ==

Hey guys,
have you guys checked out the articles promoting the far-left's dismantling of society as if it is a legitimate cause? Have you seen the far-right politics article that basically paints the far-right as supremacist and hierarchical and bigoted, while it praises far-left politics and even supports their radical destruction if society and supporting anarchy by dismantling the social structure and creating anarchy and destroying the "supremacist" and painting those who want a socially-structured society as "Far-right" in typical communist language. While failing to mention the black-supremacist politics common on the far-left, their Islamic supremacist politics and presents far-left politics as a healthy and balanced form of politics. They present the fringe left ideals of dismantling and destroying social structures and actively promote far-left politics, while "denigrating" far-right politics by proclaiming them "extremists" and in favor of social oppression, racism, supremacist politics that involve race and a society where a balanced social structure and healthy and socially normal society is presented as a "far-right" hierarchial ideal, while failing to mention the racism on the far-left, its supremacist anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian politics, its hatred against Israel, its hate rallies calling for killing Bush. Nope, far-left politics good, far-right (our politics of regular conservatives smeared as "far-right" by Wikipedia. Check out those two articles about far-right politics and far-left politics and you'll see what I am talking about.

== Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia ==

I edited Wikipedia to fix a few of the issues mentioned on this page and subpages (for example, adding the official picture of Sally Kern); should the fixed issues just be removed from this page, or should they be edited to say that Wikipedia used to have these issues before they were fixed in response to being mentioned here? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] 14:15, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
:In my opinion I think that the individual issues should stay here, but with the added caveat that they were addressed and corrected on such-and-such date. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-08-01T18:15:26Z

GRuban: /* Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia */ new section