Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-03-02T00:52:38Z

MAGAViking: changed "As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage of their convictions" to "As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions", removed extraneous reference tag

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 views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, liberal editors. On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is [a] loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

A cabal of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labeled "[[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[Communist agenda]]. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
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 [[Ann 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 name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle 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 name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|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 titled ''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 name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia site.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">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 name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://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>

[[Mark Dice]] has dedicated chapters of at least two of his books to examples and analyses of the rampant left-wing bias in Wikipedia.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTymmHPb9F0</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was the leading founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com"/> 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]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://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>https://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 dismissively 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]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===
====Antifa====
Wikipedia is very sympathetic to Antifa, saying that they are "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists." Wikipedia said the lootings in the cities and the murders of black children didn't link to Antifa, even though it obviously did. That is a lie by Wikipedia. Another lie is that they say "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of democratic left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism. The word "Right-wing extremists" are mentioned hundreds of times in Wikipedia's article about Antifa, but the word "Left-wing extremists" aren't even mentioned at all.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)</ref> Wikipedia also said that right-wing extremists are fanning the flames, and that right-wing politicians such as [[Donald Trump]] and [[William Barr]] are just lying about it, but the "pro-democracy protesters", that is, Antifa, is being treated cruelly by brutal police.

====Black Lives Matter====
Even though the BLM is a terrorist group, Wikipedia calls them a "civil-rights movement fighting to end police brutality against black people and to keep the communities safe".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter</ref> BLM even murdered several African-American children and Trump supporters, and Wikipedia still calls them "anti-hate". They endorsed [[Joe Biden]], they back all global dictators, and they are being funded by international Communist governments.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/blm-co-founder-teams-up-with-pro-chinese-communist-party-group/</ref>

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://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 [https://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=https://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 name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://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 "[https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia 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>https://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>https://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>https://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>[https://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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://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 [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

===Coronavirus===
Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") However, in China's coronavirus article, they say that there was no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

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

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://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>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

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

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that 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 criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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 M. Connolley|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 to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</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. Male to Female transexuals 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>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://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>https://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 Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://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]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

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

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# 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>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</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>https://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.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===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">https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

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

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy 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 holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://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 geologists [[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=https://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 "[https://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.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

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

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#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 the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://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 the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives 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 the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===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=https://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 uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys]
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[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.]]
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=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://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=https://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.

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>https://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 alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://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 are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were 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 Encyclopædia 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>https://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 copyright 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 site 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, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site 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. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel 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.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==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).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://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.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing 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.

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-03-02T00:47:47Z

MAGAViking: /* Old User Bias */ Fixed type "menas" > "means"

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 views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, liberal editors. On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is [a] loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

A cabal of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labeled "[[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[Communist agenda]]. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
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 [[Ann 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 name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle 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 name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|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 titled ''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 name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia site.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">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 name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://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>

[[Mark Dice]] has dedicated chapters of at least two of his books to examples and analyses of the rampant left-wing bias in Wikipedia.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTymmHPb9F0</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was the leading founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com"/> 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]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://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>https://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 dismissively 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]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===
====Antifa====
Wikipedia is very sympathetic to Antifa, saying that they are "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists." Wikipedia said the lootings in the cities and the murders of black children didn't link to Antifa, even though it obviously did. That is a lie by Wikipedia. Another lie is that they say "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of democratic left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism. The word "Right-wing extremists" are mentioned hundreds of times in Wikipedia's article about Antifa, but the word "Left-wing extremists" aren't even mentioned at all.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)</ref> Wikipedia also said that right-wing extremists are fanning the flames, and that right-wing politicians such as [[Donald Trump]] and [[William Barr]] are just lying about it, but the "pro-democracy protesters", that is, Antifa, is being treated cruelly by brutal police.

====Black Lives Matter====
Even though the BLM is a terrorist group, Wikipedia calls them a "civil-rights movement fighting to end police brutality against black people and to keep the communities safe".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter</ref> BLM even murdered several African-American children and Trump supporters, and Wikipedia still calls them "anti-hate". They endorsed [[Joe Biden]], they back all global dictators, and they are being funded by international Communist governments.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/blm-co-founder-teams-up-with-pro-chinese-communist-party-group/</ref>

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://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 [https://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=https://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 name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://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 "[https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia 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>https://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>https://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>https://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>[https://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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://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 [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

===Coronavirus===
Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") However, in China's coronavirus article, they say that there was no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

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

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://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>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

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

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that 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 criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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 M. Connolley|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 to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</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. Male to Female transexuals 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>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://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>https://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 Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://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]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

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

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# 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>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</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>https://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.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===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">https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

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

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy 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 holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://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 geologists [[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=https://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 "[https://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.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

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

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#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 the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://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 the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives 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 the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===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=https://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 uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage of their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys] </ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[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.]]
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=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://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=https://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.

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>https://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 alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://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 are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were 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 Encyclopædia 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>https://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 copyright 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 site 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, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site 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. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel 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.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==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).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://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.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing 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.

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-03-02T00:43:36Z

MAGAViking: Restructured a sentence

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 views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, liberal editors. On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is [a] loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

A cabal of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labeled "[[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[Communist agenda]]. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
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 [[Ann 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 name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle 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 name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|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 titled ''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 name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia site.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">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 name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://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>

[[Mark Dice]] has dedicated chapters of at least two of his books to examples and analyses of the rampant left-wing bias in Wikipedia.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTymmHPb9F0</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was the leading founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com"/> 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]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://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>https://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 dismissively 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]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===
====Antifa====
Wikipedia is very sympathetic to Antifa, saying that they are "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists." Wikipedia said the lootings in the cities and the murders of black children didn't link to Antifa, even though it obviously did. That is a lie by Wikipedia. Another lie is that they say "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of democratic left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism. The word "Right-wing extremists" are mentioned hundreds of times in Wikipedia's article about Antifa, but the word "Left-wing extremists" aren't even mentioned at all.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)</ref> Wikipedia also said that right-wing extremists are fanning the flames, and that right-wing politicians such as [[Donald Trump]] and [[William Barr]] are just lying about it, but the "pro-democracy protesters", that is, Antifa, is being treated cruelly by brutal police.

====Black Lives Matter====
Even though the BLM is a terrorist group, Wikipedia calls them a "civil-rights movement fighting to end police brutality against black people and to keep the communities safe".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter</ref> BLM even murdered several African-American children and Trump supporters, and Wikipedia still calls them "anti-hate". They endorsed [[Joe Biden]], they back all global dictators, and they are being funded by international Communist governments.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/blm-co-founder-teams-up-with-pro-chinese-communist-party-group/</ref>

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://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 [https://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=https://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 name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://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 "[https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia 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>https://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>https://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>https://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>[https://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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://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 [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

===Coronavirus===
Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") However, in China's coronavirus article, they say that there was no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

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

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://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>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

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

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that 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 criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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 M. Connolley|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 to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</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. Male to Female transexuals 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>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://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>https://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 Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://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]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

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

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# 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>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</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>https://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.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===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">https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

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

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy 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 holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://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 geologists [[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=https://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 "[https://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.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

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

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#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 the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://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 the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives 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 the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally menas that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===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=https://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 uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage of their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys] </ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[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.]]
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=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://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=https://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.

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>https://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 alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://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 are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were 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 Encyclopædia 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>https://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 copyright 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 site 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, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site 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. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel 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.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==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).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://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.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing 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.

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-03-02T00:37:07Z

MAGAViking: changed "A cabal of editors exists who work together to bias articles" to "A cabal of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into articles"

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 views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, liberal editors. On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is [a] loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

A cabal of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labeled "[[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[Communist agenda]]. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
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 [[Ann 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 name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle 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 name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|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 titled ''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 name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia site.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">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 name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://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>

[[Mark Dice]] has dedicated chapters of at least two of his books to examples and analyses of the rampant left-wing bias in Wikipedia.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTymmHPb9F0</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==
Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was the leading founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com"/> 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]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://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>https://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 dismissively 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]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===
====Antifa====
Wikipedia is very sympathetic to Antifa, saying that they are "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists." Wikipedia said the lootings in the cities and the murders of black children didn't link to Antifa, even though it obviously did. That is a lie by Wikipedia. Another lie is that they say "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of democratic left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism. The word "Right-wing extremists" are mentioned hundreds of times in Wikipedia's article about Antifa, but the word "Left-wing extremists" aren't even mentioned at all.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)</ref> Wikipedia also said that right-wing extremists are fanning the flames, and that right-wing politicians such as [[Donald Trump]] and [[William Barr]] are just lying about it, but the "pro-democracy protesters", that is, Antifa, is being treated cruelly by brutal police.

====Black Lives Matter====
Even though the BLM is a terrorist group, Wikipedia calls them a "civil-rights movement fighting to end police brutality against black people and to keep the communities safe".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter</ref> BLM even murdered several African-American children and Trump supporters, and Wikipedia still calls them "anti-hate". They endorsed [[Joe Biden]], they back all global dictators, and they are being funded by international Communist governments.<ref>https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/blm-co-founder-teams-up-with-pro-chinese-communist-party-group/</ref>

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more, and that Trump gets blamed for it by radical liberal left-wing mobs by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://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 [https://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=https://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 name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://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 "[https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia 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>https://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>https://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>https://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>[https://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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://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 [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

===Coronavirus===
Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") However, in China's coronavirus article, they say that there was no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

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

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://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>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

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

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that 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 criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://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 M. Connolley|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 to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</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. Male to Female transexuals 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>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://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>https://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 Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://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]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

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

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# 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>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</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>https://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.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===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">https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

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

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy 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 holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://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 geologists [[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=https://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 "[https://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.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

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

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#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 the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://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 the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives 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 the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally menas that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===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=https://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 uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage of their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys] </ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[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.]]
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=https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://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=https://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.

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>https://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 alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://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 are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were 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 Encyclopædia 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>https://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 copyright 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 site 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, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site 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. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel 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.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==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).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://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.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing 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.

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-02-18T21:47:03Z

MAGAViking: /* New section */ new section

{| 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)

::Agreed. Then maybe readers can see how long the bias lasts without correction. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:45, 17 August 2013 (EDT)
That is why it is important to use permalinks when citing to Wikipedia. I believe that examples should remain on these pages. But if an example is fixed after a short period, we may consider moving it to the subpage and replacing it with another example from that subpage which has not yet been fixed. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:39, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

== New example for you ==

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh

--[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:40, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

== My Own Case ==

I have an unusual case. I was reviewing the particulars of what happened with my Wikipedia ban. I may be the only editor in Wikipedia history to have been indefinitely banned for over 4 years because I fixed a typo. I think my case may prove to be one of the strongest examples of Wikipedia bias because there ultimately was no justification for the ban.

1. Claims that I'd "edit warred" were actually caused by my being lured into an edit war over fixing a typo.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=363077950#New_block.2C_now_lifted] The controversial edit I made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=363044921&oldid=363031183] was in actuality just a typo fix, the word was wrong given the Gallup source. This was discussed here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010] UltraExactzz realized I was being falsely accused of an edit war and reversed the ban. [[User:NeutralHomer]] furthermore attempted to force an edit war over added template warnings to my talk page which I considered a violation of [[WP:HUSH]], I should have the right to delete warnings posted to my page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010]

2. A community topic ban was reimposed by the same editor who opposed my edits in the first place, while falsely claiming consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#Topic_ban] JzG was the same editor who opposed my edits and tried to get me in trouble for them months earlier.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=334164599#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F] In actuality the so-called "consensus" was reached only by editors I myself was disagreeing with and had contacted by posting notices about the conflict on their page to let them know they were being discussed in the conversation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban]

3. Even then the topic ban only applied to articles, not their talk pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban] I was blocked ultimately not for making edits to any page, but simply discussing rationally on a talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=363239597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=363239597] This was mentioned here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Indefinitely_Blocked_for_violating_the_topic_ban]

4. Afterward my talk page was redirected to my user page by [[User:Innotata]] to prevent my appealing my block for years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&action=history]

Basically I got accused of edit warring after someone reverted my attempts to fix a typo, resulting in a topic ban, and then got banned for violating the topic ban because I made edits to the Obama talk page. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:56, 1 February 2015 (EST)

== Osteopathy? ==

The current Wikipedia page on Osteopathy, in the article's lead area, describes osteopathy as pseudo-medicine, and as "quackery," despite the fact that American law equates osteopathy as a legal equal to regular medical practice (allopathy). The entire lead section of Wikipedia's current Osteopathy article is written in such a way so as to lead a typical reader to believe that osteopathy has little or no proven scientific value. Would anybody here mind if I added a section about osteopathy? Thanks, [[User:Npov-maniac|Npov-maniac]] ([[User talk:Npov-maniac|talk]]) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:There's no need to add a new section for it -- I recommend adding it to the "Science and Evolution" section. Unless it's arguably one of the most notable/blatant examples of WP bias in this topic (compared to the others), I recommend just adding it to the sub-article. I also recommend adding permalinks. Besides all this, I think adding this would be helpful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

==Increase in Bias after 2016 Election==
In the past, to Wikipedia's credit, I think that they tried to stop bias like people labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" merely because groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center said they were. However, it seems that, within the last dozen months or so, that they've been letting such accusations as "hate group" or "far right" or things of that nature sink through. They've had articles on the Parkland March but, as far as I know, nothing on the pro-life march lately. Also, they even have entries like "fake news" where they try and define what fake news is. Besides, the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely a Left-wing foundation. Admittedly, it's not one of the big ones like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc, but it is definitely one of them. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

== Homosexuality and Evolution edits==

I added in another thing to the homosexuality section. You wouldn't believe it, but if you even change the parts in Wikipedia's "same sex marriage in the United States" article that read "states that support same sex marriage" to accurately say "states that support the legalization of same sex marriage" you'll get kicked off of their site. What a bunch of queers. Whoever owns Wikipedia must be some kind of pedophile.

In addition in the "Evolution" section I took out the part that said "despite the strong evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together...". On the contrary, there is strong evidence that dinosaurs did not live with man, and if someone is vandalizing this site, please don't. {{unsigned|Knowledge spouse}}

:The part about dinosaurs was intentional, and there is strong evidence that they lived together. CP does not dogmatically accept evolution to the exclusion of other scientifically and historically valid views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (EST)

==Bias in coverage==
Would it not be good to have a section in this article devoted to Wikipedia's bias of coverage in its topics? This could say that there tends to be a big emphasis on popular media culture topics in Wikipedia - as Wikipedia itself points out, the article on [[Coronation Street]] is longer than the article on [[Tony Blair]]. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

"Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics."
What's wrong with that? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And it's not so much biased against America as just inclusive when it comes to the rest of the world.
:Not all the news in Wikipedia is locked by administrators, so if you want to counter the bias of coverage go ahead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:48, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

==Trump administration family separation policy==
I think this article is a good example of bias gone extreme on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an entire article with the completely false title "Trump administration family separation policy". Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings").
This Wikipedia article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts.
The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

"The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy" - '''Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.'''

"The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation". - '''Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.'''

"It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement" - '''Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.'''

"Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services". - '''Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President'''

I have made many attempts at changing/renaming/deleting the Wikipedia article, as well as discussing the bias on the talk page, only to be completely dismissed by the left leaning administrators involved in the page.
--[[User:PolitiCeon|PolitiCeon]] ([[User talk:PolitiCeon|talk]]) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

== Excellent source to use for this article series ==

A Breitbart writer, whose pseudonym is "T.D. Adler," has written many articles of examples of blatant Wikipedia bias: [https://www.breitbart.com/author/t-d-adler/] These should be used to expand and update this article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
:Terrific suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

==Racial and gender bias in Wikipedia==
This article could point out that Wikipedia itself has articles entitled "Gender bias in Wikipedia" and "Racial bias in Wikipedia". [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:35, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

== New section ==

I found a good example of leftist bias on Wikipedia on the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer/Archive_1#Dayle23's_edits talk page] mentioned above. Towards the end of the discussion, it becomes obvious that a source quoting comments explicitly made by Schumer is considered to be "editorializing". Meanwhile, quotes from President Trump taken out of context by the same sources is absolutely acceptable. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2020-10-25T03:33:29Z

MAGAViking: /* Doctor Who? */ fix capitalization error

I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 18:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:I agree. Each entry does need an explanation of why it is liberal.--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 22:26, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:::I agree also. And the page should be renamed "'''Most''' Liberal TV Shows". Some are good shows, even if one disagrees with their alleged liberal-ness. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:36, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Funny, what about [[Doctor Who]]? Jk, this whole essay is bunk. you could say the same about almost everything.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:39, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

The 'all american muslim' show and a couple of talk shows still don't have any description. does anyone know why they are here?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:59, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

== Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert ==

How are they particularly liberal? Yes, they mock conservative politicians, but they mock liberal politicians too. That's why they're parodies of political talk shows. And didn't Colbert support Cain in the election until he dropped out? Stewart's a liberal, but that doesn't make his show liberally-biased. As long as they parody conservative and liberal politicians equally, I don't think they belong here. Otherwise, we would have to include SNL and virtually every single late-night comedy show. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:03, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
:Colbert Report encouraged vandalism of Conservapedia and Wikipedia. We associate vandalism with liberalism. 'Nuff said. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 10:08, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

== "Essay"? ==

All I see is a list. Where is the essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:49, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
:It's listed as an essay because it is just a list, and not an article. Some people are very, very fond of lists. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:25, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
::So if I understand correctly on Conservapedia every text that doesn't constitute a proper article is classified as an essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 08:38, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I guess so. But you overthink things. Try it out. Write an essay. You may like it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:40, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Yes, "essay" denotes content that is personal opinion and not necessarily encyclopaedic. Perhaps this could be made clearer to new users. But not in a way that devalues these pages, because some of the best content on Conservapedia is designated "essays".

== South Park ==
South Park is a Libertarian tv show not a liberal one. The how actually mocks conservatives as well as liberals. I remember one episode portrayed environmentalists as evil people who murder people and brainwash people. Plus show creators trey parker and matt stone are libertarians and matt stone once said he hates liberals more than he hates conservatives. Yes there are liberal themes on the show and mockery of conservatives but there is about as mockery of liberals as their is of conservatives.
:*Alright, I removed it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:39, 17 February 2015 (EST)

== US Shows ==

I'm guessing this list is intended to contain only the "Worst Liberal US TV Shows" but does that mean anything broadcast in the US or only programs actually produced in America? These days there is also a possibility that "widely seen" doesn't necessarily coincide with "broadcast," just to complicate matters. Should there be a paragraph about this? [[User:ConsMovies|ConsMovies]] 12:19, 17 February 2015 (EST)

== Should TV specials count as movies or TV shows? ==

Hi.

I'm thinking of adding the infamous ''Star Wars Holiday Special'' to either here or the Worst Liberal Movies counterpart (for a good reason why I think it belongs in either of those two categories, let's just say that it involved Art Carney's character AND Itchy watching what was strongly implied to be a porn film, that such an action was treated in a positive light, and it seems to really let loose with left-wing sensibilities overall even by Star Wars standards). However, I'm not sure whether TV specials count as TV shows or movies. Can someone tell me if the appropriate place for TV specials (not just the Holiday Special, but any special) is here or on Movies (either Greatest Conservative or Worst Liberal, take your pick). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

== Mr. Robot ==

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158110/

I believe this should be considered.

#Around the very beginning of the show the main character blatantly shows how insane the liberal agenda has made him. "What I'm about to tell you is Top Secret. A conspiracy bigger than all of us. There's a powerful group of people out there that are secretly running the world. I'm talking about the guys no one knows about, the guys that are invisible. The top 1% of the top 1%, the guys that play God without permission."
#Heavily criticizes corporations. The corporation that kindly gave the main character a job his brain registers as "evil corp" instead of "e-corp"
#The main character's love interest is a beautiful girl who dates a guy who likes bush and conservativeness. When the main character announced that about the hated boyfriend, he said "need I say more? ...I don't dislike him as much as the other boyfriends she gets though. He's too stupid to be evil."
#The first successful business we're introduced to is a coffee shop entrepreneur. The main character illegally hacked his business and found child porn. It seems every thriving business in this show is evil. When the child pronographer offers to give him money for blackmail he says "I don't give a shit about money."
#Near the end of the show the scheme the hackers have is to illegally erase all debt to evil corp. as Mr. Robot would put it, “the single greatest incident of wealth redistribution in history.”
[[User:Sersafir|Sersafir]] ([[User talk:Sersafir|talk]])

== Crazy Ex-Girlfriend ==

I would like to suggest this show be considered - themes of feminism, homosexuality, Judaism, abortion, promiscuity, profanity, and so on

== Caillou ==

I'm not sure about Caillou - the kid lives with his parents, a man and a woman, both of whom are kind and never drink, smoke, or swear. As for his tantrums, he is already four, and they are very rare. He's also not prone to getting everything he wants - in "Caillou fait de courses," he tries to get his mom to buy him cookies, but in a few seconds, she tells him she's already making him a cake surprise and that he cannot have both.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chhdQ2bsvMk</ref> Similarly, in "Caillou le chef cuisinier," he is impatient in waiting for a pizza to cook, but his parents merely divert him by having him pretend that they are in a restaurant and he is their server.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PFbXdQdMUE</ref> Though those references are to the original French show.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

== Living Bibically ==

It's a show coming to CBS, Technically it hasn't aired yet, but just based on the commercials, it looks like it's going to be the typical Hollywood Strawman misrepresentation of Christianity prevalent in all Hollywood media. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 20:38, 20 February 2018 (EST)

:I guess it can be added once the show debuts. P.S. Please sign your posts when you add a post. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (EST)

== Postcards from Buster ==

Can someone add the live action animated hybrid show Postcards from Buster from PBS Kids Go! on this list. It had an episode with a lesbian couple called "Sugartime". Postcards from Buster is a spin-off of Arthur.

It ran from 2004-2012. It was made by the same station that did Antiques Roadshow.

== Expanding on what makes shows liberal ==

Some of the descriptions don't shine a light on the severity of liberalism present. Two examples.

The Legend of Korra description points out its homosexual agenda and feminism but does not mention its promotion of open borders, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. In the last season the former chief of police says being a police officer is pointless. Anarchism is presented as well intentioned extremism and the anarchist villain helps the hero defeat a nationalist villain.

Bojack Horseman promotes feminism so much that its pro-metoo season was written before metoo became a thing. Has an anti 2nd amendment episode that says America hates women.

Shows that need to be added.

Glow - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda, Ronald Reagan is insulted by name
She-Ra - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda
Homecoming - Feminism, anti-military
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda, Satanic witchcraft
Pose - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda

I can do it myself if permitted.

- [[User:ErikHitch|ErikHitch]] ([[User talk:ErikHitch|talk]]) 13:18, 20 December 2018 (EST)

:We welcome the improvements of anyone, as long as they are doing so with good intentions. Please do feel free to make the adjustments you mentioned, and any others you believe to be beneficial. I know it can be difficult with this kind of page, but please also try to provide references where possible, to provide evidence to readers and give credit where it is due.
:Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:04, 20 December 2018 (EST)

== Bronies and Pedophilia. ==

Before I begin. I will not lie to you all, I am a Brony. I do agree on some aspects on the show that is criticized here, but I feel that the way that Pedophilia is mentioned in the entry makes it seem that the entire fandom is nothing but a bunch of pedophiles, and this is simply not the case. In fact, the fandom is generally opposed to pedophilia. There is a specific incident of a Brony who used to go by the pseudonym "ToonKriticY2K" who was, indeed, a pedophile. After he confessed to being a pedophile, The Brony Community has been given him nothing but scorn for his actions and have basically blacklisted him from the fandom entirely. Note that I am not saying that pedophilia does not exist in the fan base, but the same thing goes to many other fandoms. As such, I feel that mentioning the Brony Fandom name as "suggesting pedophilia" is very misleading. [[User:Alan|Alan]] ([[User talk:Alan|talk]]) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
:Edited it to be "emotional immaturity" instead of pedophilia per your request (sorry, wasn't sure what to substitute it with). Besides, I know a guy on Tumblr, Coolman229, who is a brony, and he's actually one of the most conservative people I know on Tumblr, and he has indicated he is not fond of pedophilia, or indeed various shows that do promote homosexuality and similar stuff (like Steven Universe, for example). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:34, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

== Libertarian Shows Are Not Liberal ==

''Rick and Morty'' and ''Johnny Test'' are libertarian cartoons; they are not liberal. ''Johnny Test'' directly makes fun of feds, and shows good family and moral values in a positive light. In ''Rick and Morty,'' Rick may be an atheist, but the show itself actually frequently calls his hypocrisy on this, such as in scenes where he is portrayed literally praying to God, then immediately and childishly denies God again after He does what Rick asked for. I also recall the show making fun of both the burka and feminism in one episode! (The character Summer is nearly attacked for refusing to wear a literal burka, and later, an alien male baby is portrayed being flung "outside" by a slingshot, in contrast to the females who are brought up to be intellectuals and guided on a straight path toward university.)

In addition, a show is ''not'' "liberal" for containing a homosexual (especially if the homosexuality is portrayed as funny) or a dysfunctional family!!

I also noticed that ''South Park'' used to be on the list, and the South Park movie is ''still'' on the Worst Liberal Movies list! Do you know how frequently they have been the victims of liberal censorship? Do you know how many times they have made fun of liberals?

This is kind of ridiculous. Stop labelling shows that are explicitly libertarian as liberal. I am socially conservative, and I do not always agree with those shows, but they are not "liberal," and they are certainly not the "worst."

Also, why is ''How I Met Your Mother'' on here?

:Well, technically, ''South Park'' is closer to being liberal now than libertarian (I'm doubtful libertarians would ever indicate that those who claim that "climate change" is happening are right, as that would necessarily imply that they support government intervention, yet South Park's actually done exactly that recently). Also, making fun of feds =/= not being liberal. For goodness sakes, Sartre and Michel Foucault both advocated getting rid of the feds and certainly making fun of them, and last I checked, they're not even close to being conservative (and if anything were far more to the left than even the likes of Karl Marx). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 04:40, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

==Commercials==
I'm thinking of making Essay:Worst Liberal Commercials. Thoughts? ---BernieandTrumpFan

== Doctor Who? ==

How is Doctor Who not already on here? The show has a highly liberal lean, featuring; homosexual/bisexual characters, a negative view of the United States, degradation of the family unit, etc. Would anyone object if I added it? [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2020-10-25T03:33:04Z

MAGAViking: /* Doctor Who? */ new section

I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 18:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:I agree. Each entry does need an explanation of why it is liberal.--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 22:26, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:::I agree also. And the page should be renamed "'''Most''' Liberal TV Shows". Some are good shows, even if one disagrees with their alleged liberal-ness. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:36, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Funny, what about [[Doctor Who]]? Jk, this whole essay is bunk. you could say the same about almost everything.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:39, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

The 'all american muslim' show and a couple of talk shows still don't have any description. does anyone know why they are here?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:59, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

== Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert ==

How are they particularly liberal? Yes, they mock conservative politicians, but they mock liberal politicians too. That's why they're parodies of political talk shows. And didn't Colbert support Cain in the election until he dropped out? Stewart's a liberal, but that doesn't make his show liberally-biased. As long as they parody conservative and liberal politicians equally, I don't think they belong here. Otherwise, we would have to include SNL and virtually every single late-night comedy show. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:03, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
:Colbert Report encouraged vandalism of Conservapedia and Wikipedia. We associate vandalism with liberalism. 'Nuff said. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 10:08, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

== "Essay"? ==

All I see is a list. Where is the essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:49, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
:It's listed as an essay because it is just a list, and not an article. Some people are very, very fond of lists. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:25, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
::So if I understand correctly on Conservapedia every text that doesn't constitute a proper article is classified as an essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 08:38, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I guess so. But you overthink things. Try it out. Write an essay. You may like it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:40, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Yes, "essay" denotes content that is personal opinion and not necessarily encyclopaedic. Perhaps this could be made clearer to new users. But not in a way that devalues these pages, because some of the best content on Conservapedia is designated "essays".

== South Park ==
South Park is a Libertarian tv show not a liberal one. The how actually mocks conservatives as well as liberals. I remember one episode portrayed environmentalists as evil people who murder people and brainwash people. Plus show creators trey parker and matt stone are libertarians and matt stone once said he hates liberals more than he hates conservatives. Yes there are liberal themes on the show and mockery of conservatives but there is about as mockery of liberals as their is of conservatives.
:*Alright, I removed it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:39, 17 February 2015 (EST)

== US Shows ==

I'm guessing this list is intended to contain only the "Worst Liberal US TV Shows" but does that mean anything broadcast in the US or only programs actually produced in America? These days there is also a possibility that "widely seen" doesn't necessarily coincide with "broadcast," just to complicate matters. Should there be a paragraph about this? [[User:ConsMovies|ConsMovies]] 12:19, 17 February 2015 (EST)

== Should TV specials count as movies or TV shows? ==

Hi.

I'm thinking of adding the infamous ''Star Wars Holiday Special'' to either here or the Worst Liberal Movies counterpart (for a good reason why I think it belongs in either of those two categories, let's just say that it involved Art Carney's character AND Itchy watching what was strongly implied to be a porn film, that such an action was treated in a positive light, and it seems to really let loose with left-wing sensibilities overall even by Star Wars standards). However, I'm not sure whether TV specials count as TV shows or movies. Can someone tell me if the appropriate place for TV specials (not just the Holiday Special, but any special) is here or on Movies (either Greatest Conservative or Worst Liberal, take your pick). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

== Mr. Robot ==

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158110/

I believe this should be considered.

#Around the very beginning of the show the main character blatantly shows how insane the liberal agenda has made him. "What I'm about to tell you is Top Secret. A conspiracy bigger than all of us. There's a powerful group of people out there that are secretly running the world. I'm talking about the guys no one knows about, the guys that are invisible. The top 1% of the top 1%, the guys that play God without permission."
#Heavily criticizes corporations. The corporation that kindly gave the main character a job his brain registers as "evil corp" instead of "e-corp"
#The main character's love interest is a beautiful girl who dates a guy who likes bush and conservativeness. When the main character announced that about the hated boyfriend, he said "need I say more? ...I don't dislike him as much as the other boyfriends she gets though. He's too stupid to be evil."
#The first successful business we're introduced to is a coffee shop entrepreneur. The main character illegally hacked his business and found child porn. It seems every thriving business in this show is evil. When the child pronographer offers to give him money for blackmail he says "I don't give a shit about money."
#Near the end of the show the scheme the hackers have is to illegally erase all debt to evil corp. as Mr. Robot would put it, “the single greatest incident of wealth redistribution in history.”
[[User:Sersafir|Sersafir]] ([[User talk:Sersafir|talk]])

== Crazy Ex-Girlfriend ==

I would like to suggest this show be considered - themes of feminism, homosexuality, Judaism, abortion, promiscuity, profanity, and so on

== Caillou ==

I'm not sure about Caillou - the kid lives with his parents, a man and a woman, both of whom are kind and never drink, smoke, or swear. As for his tantrums, he is already four, and they are very rare. He's also not prone to getting everything he wants - in "Caillou fait de courses," he tries to get his mom to buy him cookies, but in a few seconds, she tells him she's already making him a cake surprise and that he cannot have both.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chhdQ2bsvMk</ref> Similarly, in "Caillou le chef cuisinier," he is impatient in waiting for a pizza to cook, but his parents merely divert him by having him pretend that they are in a restaurant and he is their server.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PFbXdQdMUE</ref> Though those references are to the original French show.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

== Living Bibically ==

It's a show coming to CBS, Technically it hasn't aired yet, but just based on the commercials, it looks like it's going to be the typical Hollywood Strawman misrepresentation of Christianity prevalent in all Hollywood media. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 20:38, 20 February 2018 (EST)

:I guess it can be added once the show debuts. P.S. Please sign your posts when you add a post. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (EST)

== Postcards from Buster ==

Can someone add the live action animated hybrid show Postcards from Buster from PBS Kids Go! on this list. It had an episode with a lesbian couple called "Sugartime". Postcards from Buster is a spin-off of Arthur.

It ran from 2004-2012. It was made by the same station that did Antiques Roadshow.

== Expanding on what makes shows liberal ==

Some of the descriptions don't shine a light on the severity of liberalism present. Two examples.

The Legend of Korra description points out its homosexual agenda and feminism but does not mention its promotion of open borders, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. In the last season the former chief of police says being a police officer is pointless. Anarchism is presented as well intentioned extremism and the anarchist villain helps the hero defeat a nationalist villain.

Bojack Horseman promotes feminism so much that its pro-metoo season was written before metoo became a thing. Has an anti 2nd amendment episode that says America hates women.

Shows that need to be added.

Glow - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda, Ronald Reagan is insulted by name
She-Ra - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda
Homecoming - Feminism, anti-military
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda, Satanic witchcraft
Pose - Feminism, gender confusion, homosexual agenda

I can do it myself if permitted.

- [[User:ErikHitch|ErikHitch]] ([[User talk:ErikHitch|talk]]) 13:18, 20 December 2018 (EST)

:We welcome the improvements of anyone, as long as they are doing so with good intentions. Please do feel free to make the adjustments you mentioned, and any others you believe to be beneficial. I know it can be difficult with this kind of page, but please also try to provide references where possible, to provide evidence to readers and give credit where it is due.
:Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:04, 20 December 2018 (EST)

== Bronies and Pedophilia. ==

Before I begin. I will not lie to you all, I am a Brony. I do agree on some aspects on the show that is criticized here, but I feel that the way that Pedophilia is mentioned in the entry makes it seem that the entire fandom is nothing but a bunch of pedophiles, and this is simply not the case. In fact, the fandom is generally opposed to pedophilia. There is a specific incident of a Brony who used to go by the pseudonym "ToonKriticY2K" who was, indeed, a pedophile. After he confessed to being a pedophile, The Brony Community has been given him nothing but scorn for his actions and have basically blacklisted him from the fandom entirely. Note that I am not saying that pedophilia does not exist in the fan base, but the same thing goes to many other fandoms. As such, I feel that mentioning the Brony Fandom name as "suggesting pedophilia" is very misleading. [[User:Alan|Alan]] ([[User talk:Alan|talk]]) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
:Edited it to be "emotional immaturity" instead of pedophilia per your request (sorry, wasn't sure what to substitute it with). Besides, I know a guy on Tumblr, Coolman229, who is a brony, and he's actually one of the most conservative people I know on Tumblr, and he has indicated he is not fond of pedophilia, or indeed various shows that do promote homosexuality and similar stuff (like Steven Universe, for example). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:34, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

== Libertarian Shows Are Not Liberal ==

''Rick and Morty'' and ''Johnny Test'' are libertarian cartoons; they are not liberal. ''Johnny Test'' directly makes fun of feds, and shows good family and moral values in a positive light. In ''Rick and Morty,'' Rick may be an atheist, but the show itself actually frequently calls his hypocrisy on this, such as in scenes where he is portrayed literally praying to God, then immediately and childishly denies God again after He does what Rick asked for. I also recall the show making fun of both the burka and feminism in one episode! (The character Summer is nearly attacked for refusing to wear a literal burka, and later, an alien male baby is portrayed being flung "outside" by a slingshot, in contrast to the females who are brought up to be intellectuals and guided on a straight path toward university.)

In addition, a show is ''not'' "liberal" for containing a homosexual (especially if the homosexuality is portrayed as funny) or a dysfunctional family!!

I also noticed that ''South Park'' used to be on the list, and the South Park movie is ''still'' on the Worst Liberal Movies list! Do you know how frequently they have been the victims of liberal censorship? Do you know how many times they have made fun of liberals?

This is kind of ridiculous. Stop labelling shows that are explicitly libertarian as liberal. I am socially conservative, and I do not always agree with those shows, but they are not "liberal," and they are certainly not the "worst."

Also, why is ''How I Met Your Mother'' on here?

:Well, technically, ''South Park'' is closer to being liberal now than libertarian (I'm doubtful libertarians would ever indicate that those who claim that "climate change" is happening are right, as that would necessarily imply that they support government intervention, yet South Park's actually done exactly that recently). Also, making fun of feds =/= not being liberal. For goodness sakes, Sartre and Michel Foucault both advocated getting rid of the feds and certainly making fun of them, and last I checked, they're not even close to being conservative (and if anything were far more to the left than even the likes of Karl Marx). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 04:40, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

==Commercials==
I'm thinking of making Essay:Worst Liberal Commercials. Thoughts? ---BernieandTrumpFan

== Doctor Who? ==

How is Doctor Who not already on here? The show has a highly liberal lean, featuring; homosexual/bisexual characters, a negative view of The United States, degradation of the family unit, etc. Would anyone object if I added it? [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 23:33, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2020-10-25T02:52:05Z

MAGAViking: fix spacing

[[File:Trump-tweet-hollywood-and-hunt-movie (1).jpg|right|359px|]]
NOTE: We at Conservapedia do not care if a movie is considered a "classic" or that it's a famous movie that many people have nostalgia for. If it has liberal elements and/or the creators of a certain movie had some liberal agenda in mind when they crafted the story's narrative, we will call it out. Just because people love movies doesn't mean that Hollywood isn't trying to push a liberal agenda with them.

While a good amount of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|great conservative films]] is produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to produce films that attempt to normalize and aggrandize amoral lifestyles and liberal bias. Below is a list of some of the more outrageous examples:

==Politically liberal live-action films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''The 5th Wave''
|2016
|PG-13
|The military consists of evil aliens in what was overall a failed franchise that couldn't get on the recent young adult book-to-film bandwagon.
|$34,912,982
|-
|''Alien'' Franchise
|1979-2017
|R
|This pro-feminist, anti-capitalist film franchise was originated by atheist Ridley Scott. The first film was proven to be alarmingly similar to the 1965 film ''Planet of the Vampires'',<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzToy-Tjz5g</ref> but since it fitted the left's agenda, they didn't care and gave it biased reviews anyway. The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, just like its predecessor, copies another previous feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>).
|$515,930,723 (all together)
|-
|''All the Way''
|2016
|TV-14
|The 2016 HBO film based on the presidency of Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] is a good example of a historical revisionist film, palatable for liberals' regressive dominion of the media. Liberals seized the opportunity with the film to distort history in order to hold Johnson in high regard and also ignored many of the President's faults, including his racism, the War on Poverty and how it created a welfare state which, by design, destroyed untold numbers of African American families.
|
|-
|''American Psycho''
|2000
|R
|Don't be fooled by the false patriotic title. It's the most [[Anti-American]] film you'll ever see because it attempts to pass an Investment Banker off as a secret serial killer.<ref>https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/American_Psycho_Harron_Turner.html</ref><ref>https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-mergers-acquisitions</ref>
|$15,070,285
|-
|''Assault on Wall Street''
|2013
|R
|Uwe Boll (often referred to as the worst director of this generation and known for his furious, vulgar, and spiteful responses to negative reception)<ref>https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Uwe-Boll-considered-one-of-the-worst-film-directors-in-history</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BvLQb2uwW4</ref> makes one of the most historically inaccurate modern films that blames capitalism for the [[Recession of 2008|Great Recession]] and the downfall of the everyday man's life. The film plays out like an angry middle school boy's fan fiction revenge story, in which all the bankers are summarily executed (as in the [[Russian Revolution]]). Boll has said how "We need to ****ing kill the rich", which only shows how uneducated he is.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJwEAqzFs4</ref>
|
|-
|''Apocalypse Now''
|1979
|R
|This overindulgent, anti-war diatribe portrays the American military as corrupt, incompetent [[drug addiction|drug-users]].
|$78,784,010
|-
|''Battleship Potemkin''
|1925
|NR
|This silent Communist film heralds the Soviet Revolt on the Tsarist Russian battleship ''Potemkin''. When mutinying, the sailors murder a Christian chaplain aboard, which is shown as an act of "heroism".
|N/A
|-
|''The Big Green''
|1995
|PG
|The movie had one of the characters blame "Reaganomics" for the lack of job opportunities in the town and also one of the team's players was an anchor baby. In the end, one of the coaches, who was a sheriff in Texas, was able to get the player and his illegal mother a way to stay. So it was also favorable toward illegal immigration.
|$17,736,619
|-
|''The Birth of a Nation''
|1915
|N/A
|This infamously racist film, the longest feature ever made at the time, begins by documenting the [[American Civil War]], then depicts the [[Ku Klux Klan]] as "heroes" who vanquish people of color, who are black racial stereotypes, from political positions and from their lawful right to vote (the KKK was founded by the Democrat Party, even though the Left has repeatedly tried denying the connection between the two). It was the first ever film to be shown at the White House under Democrat President [[Woodrow Wilson]], and it significantly influenced his already-racist core to segregate the White House and various departments.
|
|-
|''Blue State''
|2007
|R
|What looks like a romantic comedy actually encourages the false idea that [[liberalism]] must be established and conservatism abolished in America, as the main character follows up on his absurd vow to move to Canada if [[George W. Bush]] is re-elected president.
|
|-
|''Bob Roberts''
|1992
|R
|This anti-conservative propaganda piece, directed by leftist Tim Robbins and released during the 1992 election, has a similar premise to that of ''The Candidate'' and denigrates conservatives.
|$4,479,470
|-
|''Borat''
|2006
|R
|Liberal shock jock Sacha Baron Cohen falsely portrays American conservatives as uneducated racists.
|$67,800,000
|-
|''Borat 2''
|2020
|R
|Sacha Baron Cohen goes a step further making a pro-Biden propaganda film. He tries to blame [[COVID-19]] on [[Donald Trump]] and falsely accuses him of being a [[fascist]]. He makes matters worse when he harasses patriots like [[Mike Pence]] and [[Rudy Giuliani]] and falsely portrays them as pedophiles.
|
|-
|''Born on the Fourth of July''
|1989
|R
|This radically anti-[[Vietnam War]] biographical film was produced and directed by Communist sympathizer and twice wounded Vietnam War veteran Oliver Stone, starring Tom Cruise as paralyzed Vietnam War vet-turned-anti-Vietnam War leftist protester and Communist sympathizer [[Ron Kovic]].
|$70,001,698
|-
|''Bushwick''
|2017
|TV-MA
|The dystopian thriller features Red State dwellers (depicted as racist) declaring war on Hipster Brooklyn.
|N./A
|-
|''The Butler''
|2013
|PG-13
|[[Ronald Reagan]] is falsely portrayed as indifferent toward apartheid in South Africa; Nancy Reagan is played by anti-American traitor Jane Fonda, and staunch feminist Oprah Winfrey plays Cecil's wife.
|$116,632,095
|-
|''The Candidate''
|1972
|PG
|This "comedy" fails to be a political satire as it fails to lampoon both sides of the coin and supports [[George McGovern]] at every turn. It was released during the 1972 election year as a smear campaign against [[Richard Nixon]] and his conservative colleagues. Conservative star [[James Stewart]] refused to star in it for that reason.<ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068334/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv</ref>
|
|-
|''[[Capitalism: A Love Story]]''
|2009
|PG-13
|Michael Moore, staying true to his propaganda film format, relentlessly attacks America's [[capitalist]] [[economy]] with claims of alleged financial inequality.
|$14,363,397
|-
|''Casualties of War''
|1989
|R
|This anti-Vietnam war statement film starring Sean Penn involves a gang of American soldiers raping a Vietnamese woman. This paints America soldiers as the bad guys while failing to acknowledge how the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, and other Communist Insurgents did the same thing to a far larger scale.
|$18,671,317
|-
|''Che''
|2008; 2009
|NR
|As implied by the name, the film is a two-part biopic for the Argentine Marxist terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]], who is treated sympathetically as a "martyr" for Communism.
|US$40.9 million
|-
|''The China Syndrome''
|1979
|PG
|A fictional [[nuclear power]] plant melts down. The film greatly over-hypes this risk of a [[nuclear accident]] (or meltdown) and the resultant damage. This film, along with the [[Three Mile Island]] incident (which occurred shortly after the film's release), are both credited for killing the nuclear power industry in America.
|$51,718,367
|-
|''A Clockwork Orange''
|1972
|X
|Revels in sex and violence and mocks Christian prison education. Depicts police as thugs recruited from street gangs.
|
|-
|''The Contender''
|2000
|R
|This film about the 2000 presidential election is little more than a pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda piece by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]]. Conservative star Gary Oldman also told IGN that the film was to supposed to be apolitical, but it was edited to vilify Republicans.<ref>http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/02/26/interview-with-gary-oldman</ref>
|$17,872,723
|-
|''Das Boot''
|1981
|R
|This anti-American war film looks at [[World War II]] from the Nazi perspective.
|$11,487,676
|-
|''Day of the Dead''
|1985
|R
|Liberal scientists who plan to tame zombies are the "heroes", while the common sense conservative soldiers (whose plan is to euthanize them all) are the "villains".
|$5,000,000
|-
|''Dawn of the Dead''
|1978
|R
|Besides containing outbursts of graphic violence, this stand-alone sequel to George A. Romero's ''Night of the Living Dead'' is against capitalism because the consumers are zombies.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9487PyyblpQ</ref> The 2004 Zack Snyder-directed remake abandoned this.
|$55 million
|-
|''Dead Man Walking''
|1995
|R
|It senselessly criticizes [[capital punishment]] with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.
|$39,363,635
|-
|''The Devil's Backbone''
|2001
|R
|Promotes the Communistic Spanish Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War as "good guys" while demonizing [[Francisco Franco]]'s forces. These themes, promoted by Marxist director Guillermo del Toro, were later expanded upon in ''Pan's Labyrinth''.
|US$6.5 million
|-
|''[[The Dictator]]''
|2012
|R
|A Middle Easterner takes over America in this raunchy, vulgar "comedy" straining for controversy.
|$59,650,222
|-
|''Dogville''
|2003
|R
|An [[Anti-American]] propaganda film.
|$16,680,836
|-
|''Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb''
|1964
|NR
|Loosely based on Peter George's 1958 thriller novel ''Red Alert'', this black comedy is against war, the military, and nuclear weaponry and tries to downplay the seriousness of Cold War-era fears of a nuclear apocalypse.
|$9.4 million in North America
|-
|''The East is Red''
|1964
|NR
|A Communist Chinese dance epic made during the Cultural Revolution. This was made with direct input of Mao Zedong himself. The film depicts Mao as the "savior" of China, and has many typical pro-Communist messages one would expect.
|Unknown
|-
|''The Eternal Jew''
|1940
|NR
|This anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda film was made with direct input from Adolf Hitler, who made sure the anti-Semitism was as blunt and direct as possible. Most audiences were shocked at the crudity of the messages.
|Unknown
|-
|''Fahrenheit 9/11''
|2004
|R
|A [[Michael Moore]] movie, which distorts the tangential link between the [[Bush]] family and the [[Bin Laden]] family. The title was also taken from ''[[Fahrenheit 451]]'', a book that warned people about book burnings, proving that not only do liberals steal titles from other works, but aren't even creative on how to have the titles directly connect to their works.
|$119,194,771
|-
|''Fair Game''
|2010
|PG-13
|Another Bush bash flick starring [[Communist]] Sean Penn. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. It's a typical un-American Hollywood film with "The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and [[Dick Cheney]]'s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses." There's also no mention of Iraq Liberation Act which was signed by [[Bill Clinton]] five years before the war in Iraq.
|$9,540,691
|-
|''Fire Down Below''
|1997
|R
|Steven Seagal plays a Gary Stu-like role in this environmentalist feature.
|$16,228,448
|-
|''[[Frost/Nixon]]''
|2008
|R
|As implied by the title, it attempts to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
|$18,622,031
|-
|''Game Change''
|2012
|Not Rated
|[[Liberal]] haters play [[conservative]]s in an [[HBO]] film about [[Sarah Palin]]. Many debunked controversies are highlighted in the plot. Both [[John McCain|McCain]] and Palin denounced the film and called it fiction.
|NA - TV
|-
|''God Bless America''
|2011
|R
|Despite its name the movie is a rip-off of the conservative film ''Falling Down'', this "comedy" has a miserable man and his foul-mouthed [[nihilist]] girl sidekick summary executes [[Tea Party]] members, a Fox News like-host, Christians, and other conservative stereotypes.
|$123,000
|-
|''The Good Shepherd''
|2006
|R
|Despite covering the founding of the CIA, the film was extremely anti-CIA in its messaging, where it doubles down on making the CIA look as bad as possible and overemphasizes on CIA failures such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and their experimenting with LSD, while conveniently ignoring the crimes the KGB and similar intelligence agencies within the Soviet bloc.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/</ref>
|$99.5 million
|-
|''Green Zone''
|2010
|R
|Is extremely anti-War on Terror to such an extent that it comes across as blatantly anti-American, as it repeats the falsehood that Pentagon officials lied about there being WMDs in Iraq simply so they could gin up a war in the Middle East (completely ignoring that various other intelligence agencies, including even France, a country that didn't even want a War with Iraq, acknowledging that Saddam had WMDs), and even had the main villain, who was modeled after Donald Rumsfeld, sending assassination teams against those in the know about the conspiracy. The film even went as far as to portray Iraqi terrorists as the "good guys". The film was also notorious as being Universal Studios' biggest box office bomb as a result.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/3/</ref>
|$94.9 million
|-
|''Heaven's Gate''
|1980
|R
|This notorious box office bomb comes from Marxist filmmaker Michael Cimino portrays America as the villain in the Johnson County War and has an anti-capitalist rhetoric and features a pro-illegal immigration message. Furthermore, it glamorizes prostitution and adultery.
|
|-
|''Hidden Agenda''
|1990
|R
|Depicts the [[IRA]] oppressed freedom fighters while painting the Unionists as monsters. The film also doesn't speak highly of [[Margaret Thatcher]] either.
|
|-
|''The Hunt''
|2020
|TBA
|Upcoming thriller film, based in part on the 1924 short story ''The Most Dangerous Game'' but given a modern political twist, focusing on conservatives from different walks of life being rounded up and hunted for sport by rich elitist liberals. Wikipedia claims in its article about the movie that it is "satire" and, in the article, stated that the movie drew criticism from members of the conservative media as an "alleged" portrayal of liberals hunting supporters of Donald Trump (with the term "alleged" inserted in the article in an attempt to brush off and dismiss said criticism), but it is simply Hollywood elites engaging in thinking out loud about what they wish to do to those who don't agree with or support their leftist political/social groupthink. The movie drew high-profile criticism from none other than President Trump, who used it to criticize Hollywood for its racism, hatred and promotion of violence in the media, which it then uses inflammatorily to blame others and create chaos,<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/09/donald-trump-thunders-against-racist-hollywood-they-create-violence-then-try-to-blame-others/ Donald Trump Thunders Against Racist Hollywood: "They Create Violence, Then Try to Blame Others"] at Breitbart News Network</ref> while conservative author [[David Horowitz]] called for the movie not to be released, stating that it may serve only to incite easily-influenced leftists to commit violence.<ref>[https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/david-horowitz-racism-the-hunt-liberal/2019/08/08/id/927939/ David Horowitz to Newsmax TV: Left Seeks to 'Exterminate'] at Newsmax</ref> The movie was subsequently withdrawn from release by distributor Universal Pictures in the wake of the recent mass shootings in [[El Paso Walmart shooting|El Paso]] and [[Dayton nightclub shooting|Dayton]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcJGfYiUDDE Universal Studios pulls the movie ''The Hunt''] at Fox News YouTube channel</ref> It was eventually recut, with the trailers making clear that the rich elitist liberals are intended to be the villains.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/02/the-hunt-returns-with-a-trailer-making-it-known-liberal-elites-are-the-bad-guys/102988/</ref>
|TBA
|-
|''I, Tonya''
|2017
|R
|History revisionist film that paints criminal Tonya Harding as a victim, reframing the narrative around her implication in the crime of attacking Nancy Kerrigan as justfied.<ref>https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/971183001</ref><ref>https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/01/i_nauseated_the_oregonians_for.html</ref> There's also an anti-family theme as well as Harding's mother is protarayed as psycholically abusive, despite the fact that she was nothing like that in real life.<ref>https://people.com/movies/tonya-harding-mother-monster-friend/</ref>
|$53 million
|-
|''Independence Day: Resurgence''
|2016
|R
|Although it is the sequel to the patriotic and to a certain extent conservative film ''Independence Day'', it does not at all reference the concepts of patriotism, American exceptionalism, or even national sovereignty. Instead, most of the movie seems to support globalism, and Doctor Okun is revealed to be a homosexual despite such never being implied in the original film. Forced multicultural elements are present as well.
|$389.7 million
|-
|''JFK''
|1991
|R
|This historically inaccurate account on President John F. Kennedy's assassination serves liberal filmmaker Oliver Stone's insanely fanatic conspiracy theories. For example, the filmmaker pinpoints the blame to the "real murder" of Kennedy: the conservative politicians, the U.S. Military, and then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, all of whom want America to go to war in Vietnam because Kennedy rejected the American involvement. Stone described the film as a "counter-myth" to the Warren Commission's "fictional myth."
|$70,405,498
|-
|''Lolita'' (1997 film)
|1997
|R
|The second film to be based on Vladimir Nabokov's infamous novel, the first being by Stanley Kubrick. However, in contrast to the very tame Kubrick version (limited only by the censorship of it's day), this version indulges with the gratuitous sexuality that made the book so controversial. The story portrays the relationship of Lolita and Humbert as a beautiful romance. Also, as implied by the tagline of the film's poster, the main message is that "Age is Just a Number".
|$1.1 million
|-
|''The Lone Ranger''
|2013
|PG-13
|This attack on [[capitalist]]s and the [[military]] portrays the former as ruthless, greedy railroad executives and the latter as "thugs" who support their actions. It distorts the messages of its source material by displaying the [[Lone Ranger]], shown to be a smart intellectual character in the original TV and radio serials, as dumbfounded and unintelligent, instead featuring his sidekick [[Tonto]] (played by [[liberal]] [[marijuana|pot]]-smoker [[Johnny Depp]]) not only as the "star" of the film but as the Lone Ranger's "voice of reason", too.
|$89,302,115
|-
|''Love, Simon''
|2018
|PG-13
|This coming-of-age film is an attempt by Hollywood to create a "family friendly", pseudo-conservative take on the gay romance genre. While in theory this sounds less objectionable than most offerings of this kind, it could also be considered more deceptive and dangerous. This is because it obscures the uglier, raunchier aspects of the gay lifestyle in order to create a very misleading, "heartwarming" fantasy of gay life and relationships.
|$66.3 million
|-
|''The Magnificent Seven'' (2016 film)
|2016
|PG-13
|This remake of a Western about seven [[vigilante]] gunfighters out to save a peaceful Mexican farming village from marauders (itself an adaptation of the Japanese cinematic classic ''Seven Samurai'') suits the left agenda, as capitalists are the "villains".<ref>http://missliberty.com/magnificent-seven-remake-is-angry-radical-fantasy/</ref>
|$93,145,387
|-
|''Manderlay''
|2003
|R
|[[James Caan]] refused to star in this anti-American sequel to ''Dogville'', describing director Lars von Trier as anti-American and stated that he himself is an "ultra-conservative".
|$674,918
|-
|''The Matrix'' series
|1999 (''[[The Matrix]]''); 2003 (''The Matrix Reloaded'' and ''The Matrix Revolutions''); 2021 (Matrix 4)
|R
|A hacker discovers his world is a replica of the world as it was before a cataclysmic future event in which intelligent machines took over humanity, so he joins a resistance to end the machines' reign. Despite this salvation narrative, the whole trilogy glorifies anarchism and [[nihilism]] (even including a brief nod to [[Jean Baudrillard]]'s "On Nihilism" chapter from Simulacra and Simulation), hinting several times towards a pro-Communist, anti-American, [[anti-Christian]] view. The second film's Architect scene tries to give a "devastating critique/twist" to salvation myths, with the Architect as a malevolent allegorical substitute for the Christian [[God]]. In this same scene, a panel of screens implicitly compares [[George W. Bush]] to Hitler during a discussion of evil in the world, and it features wars and conflicts specifically involving America. In fact, far-[[leftist|Left]] [[race-baiting]] scholar Cornel West was hired to play a role in the film specifically because the [[The Wachowskis|Wachowski Brothers]] (as they were known at the time) were influenced by his pro-socialist/Communist and anti-American rhetoric. The first film's throwaway dialogue between the main villain Agent Smith and the treasonous freedom fighter Cipher is a shallow attempt at insulting [[Ronald Reagan]] because Smith implies that Cipher will become the next Ronald Reagan should he succeed in betraying his allies to the agents. The trilogy's overall depiction of religion is closer to Gnosticism, even with Neo, the main protagonist, presented as a savior-figure. The Wachowskis openly admitted in an interview that they deliberately modeled the entire story after Friedrich Nietzche's writings.<ref>http://www.equip.org/article/the-matrix-unloaded-revelations/</ref><ref>Peter Bart, “Cracking the Wachowski’s Code,” Variety.com, May 25, 2003.</ref> The trilogy has been cited as the cause for various murders, ultimately leading to a variant of the [[insanity defense]] known as the Matrix Defense<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/21/ctv.matrix.insanity/</ref>, and it shares similar themes to the [[Worst Liberal Video Games|Worst Liberal Video Game]] ''Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty'' because Hideo Kojima confessed that he intended to use the same themes for the game.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20130328062143/http://www.gamespot.com/news/hideo-kojima-speaks-about-the-matrix-2448486</ref> A fourth movie was announced to be in the works.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/08/the-wachowskis-announce-the-matrix-4-is-in-the-works/91350/</ref> The movies overall had several hints at a Marxist (and even Maoist) outlook,<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1408419/posts?page=1</ref> which was later confirmed by Larry Wachowski, or rather, Lilly Wachowski, who stated that "she" created the trilogy "out of a lot of anger and a lot of rage, and it's rage at capitalism and corporatized structure and forms of oppression.", as well as overall as an extension of "her" angst at the "oppression" of [[Gender confusion|being born male instead of female]].<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lilly-wachowski-shares-how-matrix-franchise-was-inspired-by-rage-oppression-before-transition-1296914</ref>
| $592,370,339 (all together)
|-
|''Midnight in Paris''
|2011
|PG-13
|The main character, a liberal author, is open-minded and intellectual. He has an unsuccessful relationship with a woman whose family is Republican and are depicted as being "materialistic", "selfish", "narrow-minded" and "hateful" towards any country that is not the United States.
|$56,816,662
|-
|''Milk''
|2008
|R
|Sean Penn portrays openly homosexual politician [[Harvey Milk]] in this biography.
|$31,841,299
|-
|''The Motorcycle Diaries''
|2004
|R
|Walter Salles directs this fawning monument to [[Communist]] terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]].
|$16,781,387
|-
|''Mulan''
|2020
|PG
|The live action remake of the animated film of the same name. It ends up doubling down on the feminist rhetoric from the original, implies big government is good, and is particularly infamous for being a blatant example of Disney's current management's hypocrisy where they refuse to do business over Georgia, yet not only worked with China to develop the film (including censorships), but also went as far as to specifically cooperate with various departments of the Xijiping province that held authority over concentration camps. The lead actress for the film even sang praises for the Communist Party during the latter's crackdowns on Democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong during filming.
|
|-
|''The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear''
|1991
|15
|The more openly liberal sequel to the apolitical ''The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!'' pushes environmentalism and attacks productive businesses, especially the oil industry.
|$86,930,411
|-
|''[[Night of the Living Dead]]''
|1968
|R
|This independent horror abomination by George A. Romero vilifies [[nuclear energy]], as nuclear fallout from an exploding space probe in Earth's atmosphere is said to be the cause of the recently deceased becoming reanimated. In addition, it negatively portrays police officers as racist: a group of officers kills Ben, the African American protagonist, when they mistake him for one of the dead, which Romero intentionally chose to have happen to accuse the police of being behind racial lynchings. Had two [[sequel]]s , ''Dawn of the Dead'' (1978 Italian) and ''Day of the Dead'' (1985).
|
|-
|''Nixon''
|1995
|R
|This historically inaccurate biography of [[Richard Nixon]] is directed by liberal filmmaker [[Oliver Stone]].
|$13,681,765
|-
|''Okja''
|2017
|N/A
|This environmentalist propaganda piece vilifies capitalists and essentially plagiarizes the Buster Keaton classic ''Go West''.
|
|-
|''On Deadly Ground''
|1994
|R
|The film demonizes the oil industry as greedy and unsympathetic while praising the [[EPA]].
|$38,590,458
|-
|''Pan's Labyrinth''
|2006
|R
|Aside from it promoting paganism and the occult, it also demonized [[Francisco Franco]]'s Spain and promoted the Spanish Republicans from the Spanish Civil War due to it being made by Marxist director [[Guillermo del Toro]].<ref>https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2007/01/19/pans-labyrinth-allegory-of-spanish-civil-war/</ref>
|$83.3 million
|-
|''Platoon''
|1986
|R
|Anti-Vietnam War and anti-American war film which depicts most of the American soldiers as psychopathic war criminals, while the "good" soldiers smoke marijuana, and also depicts the NVA as sympathetic. Was also made by the far-left filmmaker Oliver Stone, who in an especially shameful element of irony and hypocrisy was himself a Vietnam veteran.
|$6 million
|-
|''The Post''
|2017
|R
|An obvious promotion of the leaking of the ''[[Pentagon Papers]]''. It treats the liberal journalists who committed the leaking in a positive light, while depicting Nixon in a negative light (despite Nixon never being responsible for the Pentagon Papers in the first place, and it being done under the auspices of Democrats JFK and LBJ).
|$179.8 million
|-
| ''The Purge (series)
|2013, 2014, 2016, 2018
|R
|Movie featuring gratuitous graphic violence, and normalization of violent degenerate behavior. It is based on a political movement called the "New Found Fathers of America, which is a reformation of the Republican party. This can be based on the fact that a majority of the people that played roles for characters of the "NFFA" are white and old, which is what Liberals see as the Republican party. The protagonists are what would generally be considered by the Democrats to be people who would vote for them (black, hispanic, asian, women, etc.)
|$446.8 million
|-
|''Recount''
|2008
|Not Rated
|The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]] and its aftermath in [[Florida]], presented from a [[Liberal bias|liberal-biased]] viewpoint. A look into how [[Democrats]] and their [[Mainstream media|liberal media]] supporters claim the [[Republicans]] "stole" the [[election]] and the alleged role of its party members that the Democrats claim "made it happen" (although in reality, it was the Democrats themselves who tried to steal the election for their candidate [[Al Gore]] [[United States presidential election, 2000#Recount|by attempting to commit vote fraud in Florida through ordering selective recounts in Democrat-friendly areas while ignoring Republican-strong areas]], only to be stopped when the US Supreme Court ruled the Democrats' end-run attempt around election rules to be illegal). Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real [[Warren Christopher]] and [[James Baker]] contend the film's portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue.
|NA - TV
|-
|''Redacted''
|2007
|R
|Brian De Palma’s 2007 fictional anti-Iraq War film funded by Mark Cuban. The film is credited with inspiring a [[terrorist]] attack that killed two U.S. servicemen in [[Germany]].
|$65,388
|-
|''Red Joan''
|2019
|PG-13
|Based on the life of Communist traitor Melita Norwood, who gave up schematics on the British nuclear weapons program to the KGB. The film may be vaguely anti-Stalinist, but is pro-Communist, anti-Cold War, and anti-Western. Near the end of the movie, when the woman's son accuses her of betraying her country, she insists that somehow she is the real patriot. It's also pro-feminist, as male characters are portrayed as supposedly belittling her, encouraging her to serve tea and do laundry, and rather than leaving these insignificances out of the story, the movie portrays it as integral to the plot when she supposedly tricked the British police into thinking she was stupid and asking them if they wanted tea, though that part of the story is in all likelihood inaccurate and never even happened. Also, the decision by United States President Harry Truman to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the Second World War is strongly condemned, and to an extent, is demonized. At the end of the movie, she arrogantly says ''twice'', "I was right." "Right" to give Joseph Stalin, the most evil man in history, instructions to build nuclear weapons? She refers to the fact that sharing the nuclear weapons secrets prevented the Cold War from turning hot, and while the situation of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) prevented such an occurrence, there never even would have been a Cold War if Stalin had never acquired nuclear weapons, or otherwise the U.S. would have won a lot sooner. The movie also implied that the tactics of the British police and MI5 were similar to the KGB. Imagine a film had been released portraying Jakiw Palij, the last ex-Nazi in the United States, who was deported by President Donald Trump to Germany, in such a sympathetic fashion. Just more communist propaganda from Hollywood.
|$9,800,000
|-
|''Reds''
|1981
|PG
|As a biographical film on the life of notorious American [[Communist]] journalist John Reed, ''Reds'' is a sentimental and overly romanticized portrait of [[Communism]], [[humanism]], and [[anarchism]].
|$40,382,659
|-
|''Red State''
|2011
|R
|Some of the most disgusting hate-filled liberal propaganda ever filmed, at least in the Obama era when America supposedly became a "center-left" nation. Starring John Goodman and a cast of nobodies. The film is premised on the idea that Red States are populated by the likes of anti-gay followers of an allegorical preacher in the vein of [[Fred Phelps]] of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] who performs ritual murder on gays ''ala'' [[Matthew Shepard]]. John Goodman of the [[ATF]] leads the federal government cavalry to the rescue evoking the glorious image of the Clinton era [[Waco massacre]]. Critics called it one of the director's "Twitter rants fleshed out into film with equal portions of bile sprayed at both church and state"; "Messy, overwritten, ...kind of a bore....it's not a horror movie by any usual definition. More like teen horror movie morphs into Waco disaster"; "fails onscreen and off at its world premiere ... A shoddy film and a bait-and-switch event fail to satisfy on any level"; "it's clear that the smart alec writer still has some things to learn about making a great film." Red State won the Best Motion Picture award at the 2011 Sitges Film Festival, while Michael Parks was named Best Actor.
|$1.1 million domestically (- $2.2 million loss over its $4 million budget)
|-
|''The Return of the Living Dead''
|1985
|R
|In another stand-alone sequel to ''Night of the Living Dead'', the military is supposedly responsible for the release of a toxin that turns people into zombies. The military is also shown to be inconstant, as they "fix" this by nuking the city of zombies. An anti-[[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] statement some may say (the Left feared that Reagan would create nuclear holocaust, which is present in this film).
|$14,237,880
|-
|''Robocop''
|1987
|R
|Left-wing smut-peddler Paul Verhoeven's failed attempt to depict all police forces and corporations as evil. It also contains an [[environmentalism|environmentalist]] message with the "6000 SUX," a car that pollutes and guzzles gas for no other reason than to be environmentally unfriendly. Verhoeven is also a member of the Liberal [[Jesus Seminar]], which also inspired him to make the movie a grotesque parody of Christ's resurrection.
|
|-
|''Sacco e Vanzetti''
|1971
|UR
|As implied by the title, the film acts as a biopic of the anarchist murderers [[Sacco and Vanzetti]], with them being portrayed in a sympathetic light. In addition, the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Song|Worst Liberal Song]] "Here's to You", also dealing with the two anarchists in a similar light, was released with this movie as part of its soundtrack.
|N/A
|-
|''Shoot 'Em Up''
|2007
|R
|An anti-second amendment film, the so-called "hero" is a [[nihilist]] and the "villains" are trying to defend gun rights and the Second Amendment.
|$12,807,139
|-
|''Short Circuit''
|1986
|PG (Should be PG-13)
|On top of just being an blatant ''E.T.'' rip-off, ''Short Circuit'' also downgrades the military (or the Reagan Administration in general).
|$40,697,761
|-
|''[[SiCKO]]''
|2007
|PG-13
|Another Michael Moore film which spread many falsehoods about American [[healthcare]] while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of [[socialized medicine]] such as now found in [[Obamacare]]. Memorably referred to [[Cuba]]n healthcare as being "better" than American healthcare.
|$24,540,079
|-
|''The Siege''
|1998
|R
|Don't be fooled by the fact that Bruce Willis is in it. Willis plays the antagonist, an Army general who institutes martial law in New York City after a wave of terrorist attacks. Portrays Muslims as the "victims" while demonizing the military.
|$40,932,372
|-
|''Star Trek: Into Darkness''
|2013
|PG-13
|Aside from it being a blatant ripoff on ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' in terms of plotline, the film also has several anti-War on Terror messages, as indicated by both Benedict Cumberbatch and Simon Pegg.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/2/22/4-ways-star-trek-into-darkness-shills-for-surrender-in-the-war-on-terror/</ref>
|$467.4 million
|-
|''Süss the Jew''
|1940
|NR
|Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda film, that was notorious for it successfully pushing the anti-Semitic agenda throughout Nazi Germany via a subtle method.
|Unknown.
|-
|''Syriana''
|2005
|R
|Is anti-War on Terror, with the film heavily implying that Saudi Arabia was in the middle of liberal reforms that America interfered with due to oil businessmen (despite the exact opposite being true).<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/4/</ref>
|$94 million
|-
|''They Live''
|1988
|R
|Capitalists are portrayed as evil aliens planning to rule the world. The director John Carpenter also claimed in interviews that the film was anti-[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/john-carpenter-they-live-was-about-giving-the-finger-to-reagan/#/0</ref>
|$13,008,928
|-
|''The Thomas Crown Affair''
|1968
|R
|Supports the claim that capitalism causes crime.
| $14 million
|-
|''Tomorrowland''
|2015
|PG
|Don't let the fact that the film had basis on the theme park proposed by [[Walt Disney]] fool you. The film was anti-capitalist and pro-liberal/progressive values propaganda with it pushing the exact opposite messages that Disney himself wanted to impart. Bill Whittle, when reviewing the film, even mentioned that had he still been alive and saw the film, Disney would most likely have torn up his proposal for [[Disneyland]] and proceeded to drink himself to death in despair of what the film claimed his idea was.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmxeoh69G4o</ref>
|$209.2 million
|-
|''Tout va Bien''
|1972
|NR
|[[Jane Fonda]] "art film" directed by [[Jean-Luc Godard]], who was notoriously anti-American and idolized [[Karl Marx]], is nothing more than a propaganda film for Communism, as it sympathizes with the youths who partook in the [[May 1968 riots|May 1968 Communist uprisings]] in [[France]] and features blunt anti-American imagery.
|
|-
|''Triumph of the Will''
|1935
|N/A
|The world's most infamous Nazi propaganda film (even though the Left denies it, the Nazis were in truth left wing National Socialists).
|
|-
|''Trumbo''
|2015
|R
|Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten who was jailed for his Communist beliefs, is portrayed as a free-speech martyr, and a "champion" of the First Amendment. All of his controversial beliefs are whitewashed, including his support of Lenin, Hitler (until the Nazi-Soviet Pact fell), Kim Il-Sung, and, of course, Stalin. Conversely, anti-Communists such as John Wayne, Hedda Hopper, Robert Taylor, Roy Brewer, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPA) are falsely portrayed as "hateful", "oppressive", and anti-free-speech.
|$7,857,741
|-
|''Truth''
|2015
|R
|Highly fictionalized political docudrama about the Killian documents controversy meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[George W. Bush]]. The film was not approved by then-current CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves and CBS refused to air advertisements for the film due to its, as the network stated, "inaccuracies and distortions".
|$2,541,854
|-
|''V for Vendetta''
|2005
|R
|Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[Communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
|$70,511,035
|-
|''Vice''
|2018
|R
|Made by Socialist filmmaker Adam McKay, this movie exists solely to ridicule American patriot [[Dick Cheney]] and lies about his legacy, portraying him as an unlikable sociopath without morals.
|$75,500,000
|-
|''[[W.]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|A movie designed to denigrate the role of [[Christianity]] in U.S. [[politics]] and particularly in the life of [[George W. Bush]].
|$25,534,493
|-
|''White House Down''
|2013
|PG-13
|Mocks conservatives with a liberal plot twist that makes the [[TEA Party]] out to be "terrorists". This movie was made by uber-liberals to counter great conservative film; ''Olympus Has Fallen'', which depicts North Korean terrorists as the bad guys.
|$73,103,784
|-
|''Winchester''
|2018
|PG-13
|Based loosely on the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, California. The film focuses more on its anti-gun message than the actual paranormal events.<ref>https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/winchester-confronts-the-american-curse-of-firearms</ref>
|
|-
|''Z''
|1969
|R
|Liberal propaganda that blames the [[military]] for liberal wrongdoing.
|$14,283,305
|-
|}

==Socially liberal live-action films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days''
|2007
|NR
|This Romanian film baselessly supports [[abortion]]. Liberals praised it when it won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.
|$1,198,208
|-
|''A Fish Called Wanda''
|1988
|R
|The protagonists are criminals, thieves and liars. One character even tires to kill an elderly lady, her being the only witness to the robbery. Also promotes infidelity, with the lawyer having an affair with one of the criminals, and ends up leaving his wife and daughter.
|$62,493,712
|-
|''The Abyss''
|1989
|PG-13
|From liberal atheist James Cameron, this film pushes the absurd claim that global warming is real and that the military is evil.
|$90,000,000
|-
|''Alita: Battle Angel''
|2019
|PG-13
|From producer James Cameron and director Robert Rodriguez, this film supports feminism, environmentalism, and illegal immigration and anti-capitalist, as the villains of the film are depicted as wealthy slavers who live above the poor ghettos, whereas the heroes are violent street thugs who hate money.
|$404,800,000
|-
|''American Pie''
|1999
|R
|The first installment of a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions, even treating date rape as "funny".
|$102,561,004
|-
|''And Then We Danced''
|2019
|R
|This Swedish-[[Republic of Georgia|Georgian]] co-production pushes the homosexual agenda as it presents the story of a dancer who leaves his girlfriend and longtime dance partner to begin a homosexual affair with another male dancer. Controversy erupted and protests occurred when the movie was shown in its native Georgia due to the film's homosexual theme. On account of that theme, it did very poorly at the box office.
|$281,159
|-
|''Animal House''
|1978, full title ''National Lampoon's Animal House''
|R
|This college "comedy" glorifies [[alcohol abuse]], debauchery, [[nihilism]], extramarital sex, and all varieties of youthful rebellion. The dean, played by John Vernon, suggests that being "Fat, drunk and stupid, son, is no way to go through life" to one of the rebellious youth representing the rowdy Delta Tau Chi fraternity, but he's depicted as the villain because of that. After the Delta boys are finally punished by being collectively expelled from college, they exact their revenge by sabotaging a homecoming parade and do not face punishment for such a great misdeed. Even so, the film's "hero", portrayed by one of Hollywood's most amoral actors ever, John Belushi, goes on to become a U.S. Senator, which is passed off as humorous.
|$141,600,000
|-
|''Atomic Blonde''
|2017
|R
|This Cold War film's major themes are feminism, the LGBT agenda, and racism against those with dark hair and eyes.
|$51,573,925
|-
|''[[Avatar (film)|Avatar]]''
|2009
|PG-13
|The second highest-grossing feature in history, directed by liberal James Cameron, enforces many destructive messages, including [[environmentalism]], [[feminism]], and the absurd claim that nature is God. It also ridicules the military and large businesses. To make matters worse, the protagonist forms a rather creepy romance with the native princess, who is of another species, perhaps a symbol for bestiality. The overall plotline hints at endorsing environmental terrorism, which Cameron indicated that he himself supported.
|$760,507,625
|-
|''Bad Santa''
|2003
|R
|This insult to the sacred holiday of Christmas features gratuitous coarse language, sexual escapades, drunkenness, and the main plot involving a con man posing as a Mall Santa so he and his dwarf accomplice can rob the mall's safe. It was bad enough that critics panned Disney for allowing the trashing of a cultural icon like Santa Claus as well as even then-Disney CEO, Michael Eisner, to be disgusted with the resulting film, acting as one of the main reasons for Miramax being cut loose from Disney alongside ''Kill Bill''.
|$60 million
|-
|''Bad Santa 2''
|2016
|R
|This sequel follows the already revolting ''Bad Santa''. Miramax, which distributed this movie as well as its predecessor, was acquired in 2016 by beIN Media Group, which is owned by Islamic propaganda channel [[Al Jazeera]].
|$23.2 million
|-
|''Bad Teacher''
| 2011
|R
|Cameron Diaz stars as an awful high school teacher, who is always getting high and drunk, tries to get breast-implant surgery, and encourages cheating and stealing from her students. The movie contains no [[morals]] and is filled with offensive sexual content.
| $100,292,856
|-
|''Beginners''
|2011
|R
|Promotes homosexuality and "[[coming out of the closet]]".
|$5,790,894
|-
|''Being John Malkovich''
|1999
|R
|This biopic celebrates homosexuality and includes a large amount of vulgar humor.
|$637,721
|-
|''Ben & Arthur''
|2002
|
|As the title suggests, this is a pro-homosexual propaganda movie which also portrays Christians as "hateful bigots". The film has the reputation of being one of the most hated homosexual movies by critics and audiences alike, even among homosexuals. Wikipedia also acknowledges this, as this movie is on the page "List of movies considered the worst". Was a major box-office bomb.
|$40,000
|-
|''[[The Big Lebowski]]''
|1998
|R
|Glorifies [[drug abuse]], laziness, and [[nihilism]].
|$17,451,873
|-
|''[[Billy Elliot]]''
|2000
|R
|This British film stars a boy who represents the homosexual agenda by wanting to be a ballet dancer rather than play sports. There are very poor family values as the family is constantly cursing at one another.
|$21,995,263
|-
|''Bio-Dome''
|1996
|PG-13
|It's a stoner film with an environmentalist theme.
|$13,427,615
|-
|''The Birdcage''
|1996
|R
|Yet another pro-[[homosexual agenda]] and conservative bashing film.
|$124,060,553
|-
|''Blow''
|2001
|R
|Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
|$52,990,775
|-
|''Blue is the Warmest Color''
|2013
|NC-17
|This French film supports the [[homosexual agenda]] by graphically showing lesbian sex and falsely idealizing the concept that homosexuals can be sound mentors to young children. At the Cannes Film Festival, which was headed by liberal [[Steven Spielberg]] and had a board that included ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' director, Ang Lee, it was unanimously awarded the top prize. t is widely believed that this victory was due to France's legalization of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] eight days prior. At least one of the stars of the film admitted that she felt disgusted by her role in it.
|$2,199,787
|-
|''Boat Trip''
|2002
|R
|This film about two men who accidentally aboard a gay cruise shamelessly promotes the homosexual agenda and presents the attempted sexual assault of a man by a woman as "humorous".
|$15,020,293<ref>https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=boattrip.htm</ref>
|-
|''Boogie Nights''
|1997
|R
|A young man journeys through the pornography industry in the 1970s and 1980s and glorifies the exploitation of women.
|$26,400,640
|-
|''Boyhood''
|2014
|R
|Centered on a family raised by a single mother, it downplays the importance a father has on a child's growth and development, mocks conservative Christians, and promotes underage drinking and pot smoking.
|$44,400,000
|-
|''Boys Don't Cry''
|1999
|R
|It glorifies the choice of a young girl to embrace homosexual and transgender life choices, dishonesty, and pre-marital relations. Furthermore, it caricatures and exaggerates natural reactions to her perversion, all in aid of promoting the [[homosexual agenda]]. On that note, JoAnn Brandon, the real life mother of Teena Brandon (the aforementioned woman who entered those lifestyles), condemned the movie and especially the star Hilary Swank's acceptance speech (in particular, the former failing to specifically state the reason why Teena cross-dressed was due to mental and emotional trauma from her earlier being molested by a man while she was very young, and the latter for claiming that "Teena" was in fact male when thanking Teena).<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/mar/29/oscars2000.oscars</ref>
|$11,533,945
|-
|''[[The Breakfast Club]]''
|1985
|R
|What masquerades as a drama comparing the similar personalities of five seemingly very different teenagers in school detention really promotes the use of drugs, smoking, and extramarital sex. Although it does contain the conservative quote "You ought to spend a little more time trying to make something of yourself and a little less time trying to impress people", it is said by the main villain of the movie, the high school principal.
|$51,525,171
|-
|''[[Brokeback Mountain]]''
|2005
|R
|This nauseating "romance" film proves that [[liberals]] will [[shoehorning|shoehorn]] the homosexual agenda into anything, even Westerns. It was also an early example of production companies dictating film distribution services of what they should distribute to the local level, often against the distributor's own decisions.
|$83,043,761
|-
|''The Brothers Grimsby''
|2016
|R
|This vulgar film is loaded with sex jokes, sex scenes, nudity, one graphic elephant sex scene, and a joke about Donald Trump getting AIDS. Luckly it was a box office bomb.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/03/14/box-office-brothers-grimsby-flopped-because-it-didnt-look-good/#4a36b6f749d7</ref>
|$6,874,837
|-
|''But I'm a Cheerleader''
|1999
|R
|A lesbian [[public school]] [[cheerleading|cheerleader]] is attracted to other cheerleaders, portraying [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle. The film attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people, and it normalizes lesbians by depicting the star as a girly cheerleader, obviously a forced subversion of the lesbian archetype.
|$2,205,627
|-
|''Call Me By Your Name''
|2017
|R
|The ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' of 2017, only this time pedophilia, in addition to homosexuality, is endorsed and displayed as "normal" and "intellectual".
|
|-
|''Caligula''
|1979
|UR (should be NC-17)
|This historical drama about infamous Roman emperor of the same name has been considered the most pornographic movie ever made, which led to it being a critical failure. It has unsimulated scenes of oral and anal sex, incest, and close-ups of the genitalia of both sexes, along with brutal violence. Upon release, several U.S. cities tried to prevent the movie from being played, though liberal courts repeatedly affirmed that it passed the Miller test (claiming that it was not obscene enough to be banned). Some lawyers defending it even lamented that it helped to form a conservative morality, which may have helped Ronald Reagan win the 1980 election.
|$23 million
|-
|''Captain Marvel''
|2019
|PG-13
|Based on the eponymous Marvel Comics superheroine and set in 1995, the twenty-first installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe follows Carol Danvers as she becomes Captain Marvel after Earth is caught in the center of a galactic conflict between two alien civilizations. In contrast to the rest of the film series up to this point, ''Captain Marvel'' is explicitly feministic, one example showing a deleted scene with Captain Marvel threatening a man for mild flirts including "Smile for me" and stealing his belongings. During an interview, Captain Marvel's actress Brie Larson shows some sexism and self-loathing racism by saying that she won't accept reviews about the movie from white men (even though she is herself white). The film was also notorious for Disney and Marvel going to extremes to ensure it had any chance at a box office success, including forcing theaters to make it the single showing for a week<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/some-reports-indicate-captain-marvel-is-the-only-movie-playing-at-some-theaters-during-premiere-week/78446/</ref> as well as having Rotten Tomatoes remove its negative reviews of the film.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/rotten-tomatoes-removes-thousands-of-negative-captain-marvel-user-ratings/79348/</ref><ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-censorship-circumvented-thanks-to-dissenter-extension/78084/</ref>
|$1.128 billion
|-
|''The Cat in the Hat''
|2003
|PG (Should be PG-13)
|This bastardization of an instantly recognizable children's classic, filled with adult humor and pandered to focus groups, is the reason why Dr. Seuss's widow has banned any live-action adaptations of Seuss's works. It won a one-time Golden Raspberry (or "Razzie") Award for "Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie (All Concept/No Content)" and was nominated for eight other Razzies.
|$134 million
|-
|''Chuck & Buck''
|2000
|R
|Debauched independent film about a man who revisits another man he traumatized through sexual grooming as a child. The message is that in some instances, groomers are the real victims and greatly misunderstood because of their need for casual sex. Also, if their victims weren't "brainwashed" by moralistic views about sex, most of them would consent to it and see it as a good thing, and no trauma would ever happen. In the film, when he meets the man he seduced in their youth, he encourages him to cheat on his wife, who is "holding him back", and have sex with him in order to desensitize him to hedonism and see monogamy as a perversion. The director and writer of the film is openly bisexual, and plays the role of the groomer who initiates the encounter. He admits it is based on his experiences and fantasies.
|N/A
|-
|''The Cider House Rules''
|1999
|PG-13
|Glorifies [[abortion]] and advocates "[[pro-choice]]" values to a fault.
|$57,545,092
|-
|''Chappie''
|2015
|PG-13
|Another "social" science fiction film that just abuses our [[First Amendment|first amendment right]] to bash capitalism. Neill Blomkamp also directed liberal films District 9 and Elysium too. On an optimistic note, the film got bad reviews (even from liberal critics)<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chappie/</ref> and the film did poorly in America (70% of its gross came from overseas).<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chappie.htm</ref>
|$31,569,268
|-
|''[[City of Ember]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|Currently the once-in-a-lifetime adaptation.
|
|-
|''[[Clerks]]''
|1994
|R
|Filled with constant vulgar [[profanity]]. Previously rated NC-17 before being appealed for an R rating.
|$3,151,130
|-
|''Clerks 2''
|2006
|R
|Sequel to the liberal comedy, filled with more profanity and even more disgusting acts that could not be in the budget of the original film.
|$24,148,068
|-
|''[[The Cosmic Slop]]''
|1994
|NR
|HBO trilogy focusing on minority science fiction. The main claim to fame was an adaptation of ''[[The Space Traders]]'', a race-baiting short story that was written by the infamous race-baiting leftist professor Derrick Bell.
|
|-
|''Cuck''
|2019
|NR
|As implied by the title, it mocks conservative values and paints conservatives and alt-right people as lunatics. Is also notorious for being released to a box office of $0.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/cuck-movie-gets-woke-goes-broke-at-box-office/106756/</ref>
|$0
|-
|''Cuties''
|2020
|
|This depraved French movie shamelessly sexualizes pre-pubescent girls and has them dancing in sexually suggestive ways that no respectable '''adult woman''' would be seen doing. When asked if they supported pedophilia, producers at Netflix responded that they respected all religions, as if they really believed that pedophilia is actually a religion.
|
|-
|''Dallas Buyers Club''
|2013
|R
|Egregiously supports the homosexual agenda during its deadly-years [[AIDS]] epidemic..
|$27,298,285
|-
|''The Danish Girl''
|2015
|R
|One of the definitive pro-homosexual/gender confusion propaganda films. Eddie Redmayne portrays Einar Wegener, a landscape artist who stands in for a female model who no-showed for a planned painting made by Wegener's wife, Gerda. Einar, who has undergone gender confusion for years, snaps as a result of the modeling sessions where he stands in as "female" and he begins claiming to be a "woman" calling himself "Lili Elbe", which nearly leads to him being committed to an asylum. Einar later undergoes surgical mutilation to accommodate his delusion, but he dies of infection due to the mutilation.
|$11,114,018
|-
|''The Day After''
|1983
|Not Rated
|Attacks the military and conservative politicians, and encourages negotiation with Communists.
|NA - TV
|-
|''The Day After Tomorrow''
|2004
|PG-13
|Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional "[[climate change]]".
|$186,740,799
|-
|''Day of the Animals''
|1977
|PG
|Environmentalist propaganda that states "global warming" turns woodland animals into psychotic human-hunters. It also claims that humans must get what they deserve (which they do not).
|$2 million
|-
|''Dazed and Confused''
|1993
|R
|This coming of age film circa 1976, attempts to normalize [[promiscuity]] and [[drug abuse]] among teenagers and young adults.
|$7,993,039
|-
|''District 9''
|2009
|R
|Alien invaders are shown sympathetically, but the military, corporations, and humans in general are not.
|$115,646,235
|-
|''Django Unchained
|2012
|R
|Quentin Tarantino's Western gratuitously uses graphic violence and the n-word.
|$425,368,238
|-
|''Don’t Breathe''
|2016
|R
|The movie's protagonists are three burglars who break into homes (secured by one of their father’s security company) to steal items to sell. The "villain" of the movie is a blind army veteran, and the homeowner of the house they are breaking into. Although they do find he has kidnapped the girl who killed his daughter in a car accident. Also feminism is present with the the leader of the thieves being a girl.
|$89,217,875
|-
|''Doom''
|2005
|R
|Based on the video game that influenced the [[Columbine High School massacre|Columbine High School massacre]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060223025846/columbine.free2host.net/quotes.html</ref>, ll the military characters (except one) are corrupt. Fans of the game criticized it for not including much monster-themed action.
|$28,212,337
|-
|''Drag Me to Hell''
|2009
|R
|Despite being made by known Republican<ref>http://whatculture.com/offbeat/10-celebs-you-wouldnt-expect-to-be-republicans?page=4</ref> Sam Raimi, the film's premise dealt with a woman being condemned simply for doing what her job required her to do at the bank, with Raimi also implicitly stating that the gypsy who cursed her had sympathetic reasons for cursing the main protagonist despite the fact that she herself had explicitly foresaked paying mortgage three times. In addition, the means to counteract the Lamia (the creature responsible for sending people to Hell when cursed) were more explicitly Pagan than Christian.
|$90.8 million
|-
|''Easy Rider''
|1969
|R
|This slice-of-life drama follows two drug-addicted motorcyclists who glorify every aspect of the hippie lifestyle. Conservatives incorrectly portrayed as racist rednecks.
|$60 million
|-
|''Elysium''
|2013
|R
|This propaganda piece criticizes big business and supports [[illegal immigration]].
|$93,050,117
|-
|''Fantastic Four''
|2015
|PG-13
|Based very loosely on the comics of the same name and deprived of the source material's humor, the film portrays the military in a negative manner. Here, they only want to use superpowered teens as weapons. On top of that, they also changed the race of the Human Torch for political correctness/cultural Marxism reasons. The film was also infamous for its controversial behind-the-scenes history. The studio executives mandated reshoots without the director's knowledge of this and the final cut was gutted in the editing room. Director Josh Trank was so angered by this that he completely disowned the film.<ref>http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/josh-trank-disowns-fantastic-four-via-twitter-claims-studio-interference-322</ref>
|$56,117,548
|-
|''Fast Food Nation''
|2006
|R
|Despite its title and that fact that Bruce Willis is in it, the film is attacks fast food and capitalism while pushing [[environmentalism]], veganism, [[illegal immigration]], and extramarital sex.
|$1,005,539
|-
|''Fast Times at Ridgemont High''
|1982
|R
|Film glorifies [[drug abuse]], premarital sex, and [[abortion]]. It was also one of [[Sean Penn]]'s early film roles as he would go on to star in more liberal propaganda films.
|$27,092,880
|-
|''Female Trouble''
|1974
|NC-17
|This atrocious movie is made from the same director of ''Pink Flamingos'', starring an overweight delinquent student named Dawn Davenport (played by transvestite Divine) who abandons her family and starts a life of crime. Crime is glorified and embraced, for Dawn decides to start causing crime as a way to get famous, and she even shows no remorse for her actions while she is electrocuted at the end of the movie, thanking her fans for helping her gain infamy. Abuse is also glorified, from Dawn's contempt for her parents to refusing to let her daughter Taffy be a normal girl, beating her harshly and even threatening to kill her for joining Hare Krishna (and eventually does). When Taffy later meets her father who abandoned the family, he sexually harasses her, pushing an incest vibe as well. The movie also pushes the homosexual agenda, where one woman urges a man to become gay because she thinks of heterosexuality as boring, and it shows two close-up shots of male genitalia as well. Like with ''Pink Flamingos'', this movie got a positive reception from a rather morality-deprived audience.
|$25,000
|-
|''The Forest''
|2016
|PG-13
|Depicts the Aokigahara Forest in [[Japan]] as a scary place filled with vengeful ghosts. In reality, it is a sad place where people go to commit suicide.
|$37.6 million
|-
|''The Fourth Kind''
|2009
|PG-13
|Uses the real-life tragedies of deceased and missing citizens of Nome, Alaska to make money with a fictitious story about alien abductions.
|$47,709,193
|-
|''Freddy Got Fingered''
|2001
|R
|Contains a lot of crude and revolting gross-out sexual humor, including a scene where the main character actually makes a horse [censored]. Uses shock tactics in much the same way that ''[[Family Guy]]'' does. Won five Razzie awards, including Worst Picture and four awards (Worst Actor, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay and Worst Screen Couple) for star and director, Canadian "comedian" Tom Green.
|$14.3 million
|-
|''Get Out''
|2017
|R
|This racist horror comedy-drama follows an African American man who discovers to his shock that his white American girlfriend's parents transplant the brains of white Americans into the bodies of African Americans as if to strip their victims of African American cultural identity. It presents a false dichotomy between black and white culture and discourages American ideals such as interracial and intercultural integration, all while accusing white Americans of wanting to eliminate instead of integrate all racial subcultures in the nation.
|
|-
|''Ghostbusters'' (2016 remake)
|2016
|PG-13
|This staunchly feminist remake of the conservative horror comedy classic replaces all the original male heroes with women who appear to have only vaguely different personalities, and every male character is either unintelligent or mean-spirited. Racism and sexual innuendoes are present as well.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ikR-6uSMYz</ref> Also the remake also replaces the [[EPA]] with [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Homeland Security]] as the bad guys. Luckily, no one other than the world's most biased liberal critics liked it, as its trailer was known for being the most hated of its kind on YouTube.<ref>http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-trailer-most-disliked-movie-trailer-in-history/</ref> Sony was caught making fake reviews<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXv3w59raZ4</ref> and the film flopped at the box office <ref>https://www.imdb.com/news/ni60138331?fb_comment_id=1146766692061206_1146942958710246&comment_id=1146942958710246</ref> so tremendously that Sony Pictures Entertainment lost over $70 million.
|$120,049,002
|-
|''Glen or Glenda''
|1953
|Not rated
|Created by Ed Wood and widely regarded as one of the worst directors of all time, it celebrates cross-dressing and transsexualism.
|N/A
|-
|''Godzilla'' (1998 film)
|1998
|PG-13
|Liberal and homosexual director Roland Emmerich turns Godzilla into a girl and enforces the idea military does more damage than Godzilla. The film even fails to address the original message of the original 1954 Japanese film (the first ''Godzilla'' was created in response to fears of the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II), with the resulting film likewise being hated by Godzilla fans and by Toho Films, to the extent that the "Godzilla" in this film when later appearing in the mainline films was given a separate identity to the mainstream Godzilla and beaten easily. Liberals also panned the film, in particular a running gag which had the Mayor of New York doing a "thumbs up and thumbs down" vote in an unsubtle jab at Siskel and Ebert.
|$136,314,294
|-
|''[[Good Will Hunting]]''
|1997
|R
|Left-wing actors/writers [[Matt Damon]] and [[Ben Affleck]] created this coming of age film that is the main reason why [[Howard Zinn]]'s anti-American revisionist textbook ''A People's History of the United States'' became both public knowledge and provided in all universities and high schools across America. Matt Damon's character, Will Hunting, tells [[Robin William]]'s character in a pivotal scene, "You wanna read a ''real'' history book? Read Howard Zinn’s ''People’s History of the United States''. That book’ll f*****’ knock you on your a**.”<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/5/</ref>
|$225,933,435
|-
|''Gringo''
|2018
|R
|Not only is the title of this movie a racial slur against white people, but this movie also egregiously promotes pot smoking. In addition, the main male character is extremely feminine, which suits Hollywood's stance on the traditional gender roles. This movie didn't even make the Top 10 its opening weekend, despite heavy marketing.
|
|-
|''Hair''
|1979
|PG (Should be R)
|Based on the Broadway musical, the film's profanity, its depiction of the use of illegal drugs, its treatment of sexuality, its irreverence for the American flag, and its gratuitous nudity caused much comment and controversy as it did when the stage musical first premiered in 1967. A product of the hippie counterculture and sexual revolution of the 1960s, several of its songs became anthems of the anti-Vietnam War peace movement.
|$15,284,643
|-
|''Hairspray''
|2007
|PG
|Poor [[moral]]s shown, encourages homosexual agenda, bad behavior, such as smoking, drinking, cursing. Many sexual comments are shown. It portrays conservatives and those with high expectations in a negative viewpoint.
|$118,871,849
|-
|''Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle''
|2004
|R
|The adventures of two pot-smokers who play up ethnic stereotypes.
|$18,250,550
|-
|''Horrible Bosses''
|2011
|R
|Three men try to kill their bosses. Two of the three bosses are wealthy businessmen. The film is also filled with offensive language and many sexual references. Was followed by a sequel that however supported the American Dream and capitalism.
|$117,538,559
|-
|''The Hottie and the Nottie''
|2008
|PG-13 (should be R)
|Ultra-liberal actress [[Paris Hilton]] stars in this movie that glorifies every aspect of the "bimbo", "dumb blonde" and "valley girl" lifestyles (all of which Hilton herself has embraced over time as part of her public persona) and contains demeaning depictions against those with dark hair and dark eyes, calling them "unattractive".
|$27,696
|-
|''The House That Jack Built''
|2018
|R (should be NC-17)
|According to director Lars von Trier, this ultra violent and sadistic serial killer film is meant to be seen as an analogy for [[Donald Trump]] (or as von Trier insultingly refers to him "Homo Trumpus") and his administration. This is a gruesome and vicious movie that glamorizes the murder of women and children - calling it a form of art. It relies heavily on Satanic imagery and Nazi iconography purely to shock and offend. Even most liberals were turned off by this movie!
|
|-
|''Howl''
|2010
|R
|Film about homosexual poet and [[beatnik]]-turned-[[hippie]], [[Allen Ginsberg]]. Promotes the [[homosexual agenda]] and the idea that writing about [[pornography]] is "protected" under the [[First Amendment]] and has "literary value".
|$617,334
|-
|''I Love You Phillip Morris''
|2010
|R
|A homosexuality-themed comedy-drama film about a homosexual inmate who escapes to reunite with his lover.
|$2,037,459
|-
|''[[Jackass]]: The Movie''
|2002
|R
|Essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story.
|$64,255,312
|-
|''Jennifer's Body''
|2009
|R
|This film starring Megan Fox promotes feminism and glorifies [[Satanism]], and contains a lesbian kiss and them making out.
|$16,204,793.
|-
|''Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom''
|2018
|PG-13
|Unfortunately, Christian movie star, Chris Pratt, cannot save this film from being a liberal disaster. This film, like its predecessor, "Jurassic World," is also very supportive of feminism. In fact, that is even more apparent, as Chris Pratt's character - Owen Grady - is depicted as heartless for not wanting to save the dinosaurs and preferring to be left alone; on the flip side, the more feminist Claire Dearing is now a dinosaur rights activist, using Owen's ''Velociraptor'' Blue to get Owen to save the dinosaurs with her. At the end of the film, the dinosaurs are released into the wild, putting billions of human lives in danger, clearly giving an environmental message. Also, one of the younger characters clearly looks like an SJW, with her character acting as such. Not only that, but one of the main antagonists calls her a "nasty woman" which is clearly a jab at Donald Trump. According to one of the actresses, Daniella Pineda, there was intended to be a scene (that was fortunately cut) that revealed that her character, Zia Rodriguez, was a lesbian when admitting she was fond of Chris Pratt's character.<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-star-daniella-pinedas-lesbian-reveal-cut-film-183618705.html</ref>
|$417,719,760
|-
|''Kids''
|1995
|NC-17
|Pornographic film concerning five rebellious underage teenagers in [[New York City]] engaging in graphic sex, violent acts, [[drug]]/[[alcohol]] use, and spreading [[HIV]].
|$7,412,216
|-
|''The Kids Are All Right''
|2010
|R
|Portrays homosexuality and homosexual parenting as a "normal" lifestyle.
|$20,811,365
|-
|''[[The Laramie Project]]''
|2002
|Unrated
|An adaptation of the play of the same name made by HBO to promote the homosexual agenda, including giving a one-sided, extremely biased perspective on the murder of Matthew Shepherd implying that his murderers had "homophobia" as a motive. It also has a significant anti-religious bent in it, where two of the documentarists (implied to be homosexual) tried to talk to a priest specifically to "piss him off," and also had one of the members breaking down from a priest being "hateful" simply because he implied the possibility that Matthew Shepherd will go to hell if he didn't repent for his homosexual activities.
|
|-
|''Legally Blonde''
|2001
|PG-13
|A pro-feminist musical that also promotes every aspect of the "valley girl" lifestyle. Smart people (such as those who go to law school) are described as "boring, ugly, serious people" by the father of Elle Woods (the film's protagonist). It also contains hidden demeaning remarks about dark-haired people. Spawned a sequel that, despite the patriotic-sounding title ("Red, White, and Blonde"), ultimately wasn't much better, which included a homosexual joke involving Elle Woods' pet chihuahua (despite the original film implying that said dog, who was male, was infatuated by the Taco Bell chihuahua mascot, a female).
|$96,520,674
|-
|''The Lost World: Jurassic Park''
|1997
|PG-13
|The film is pro-environmentalist, and features John Hammond, the original head of Jurassic Park, hiring environmentalist hippies to sabotage his own company in the name of releasing the dinosaurs back into the wild, with the protagonists being depicted as being in the right despite causing explicit destruction and death via their actions, as well as demonizing the corporation for trying to stop them. Also has an anti-hunting message due to one of the main antagonists explicitly being a hunter; adding to that is one of the "heroes" removing bullets from the hunter's gun, putting everyone in even more danger from the dinosaurs, though no one calls him out for it. It is to be noted that such a message not only was not present in the book it was adapted from, but it if anything was the complete antithesis to the anti-cloning message from both the original book by Michael Crichton and the 1993 film that adapted it and that ''Lost World'' acted as a sequel to.
|$618.6 million
|-
|''Léon: The Professional''
|1994
|R
|Disgusting film the features an assassin taking an orphan under his wing (even worse her family shows poor values and are nasty to each other). He then trains her to be an assassin herself to kill the corrupt [[DEA]] responsible for her parents murder, but also the assassin who's much older than her seems to be [[Pedophilia|romanticized by her]] (in a deleted scene they even have sex).
|$19,501,238
|-
|''Lethal Weapon 3''
|1992
|R
|Pro-gun control propaganda disguised as a buddy cop action film.
|$144,731,527
|-
|''Lethal Weapon 4''
|1998
|R
|The sequel now has a pro-illegal immigration message.
|$130,444,603
|-
|''Machete''
|2010
|R
|Open borders propaganda about illegals crossing the southern border. Southerners are portrayed as slack-jawed racists. Robert De Niro plays a corrupt Texas senator and Don Johnson plays the racist leader of a vigilante border group.
|$26,593,646
|-
|''Mad Max: Fury Road''
|2015
|R
|Feminist propaganda that endorses and celebrates anarchy. Also, it bears some "[[Plagiarism|similarities]]" to the John Wayne classic ''Stagecoach''. Fourth movie in the ''Mad Max'' film series first made famous by Mel Gibson in the title role between 1979 and 1985.
|$153,636,354
|-
|''Maleficent''
|2014
|PG
|Apparently represents the idea of revising the ''Sleeping Beauty'' story to focus on a lesbian relationship; although Aurora clearly loves Maleficent as a mother figure, Maleficent takes over the role of the prince and is revealed to be the person whose kiss of "true love" (given on the forehead) really saved Aurora. Revisionist piece which unabashedly promotes the feminist agenda to the extent that most of the males are either villains or useless, even going so far as to heavily hint at a transgender philosophy; promotes hard-core environmentalism, moral relativism and even Marxism; pretty much ruins the morality tale for ''Sleeping Beauty''. ''The Federalist'' also had a field day with the film stating how it promoted the leftist agenda and citing point by point its agenda.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/</ref> In particular, King Stefan, far from being depicted as a good father who gave up Aurora to the three fairies to protect her from the curse, was shown to not care for Aurora at all and was willing to let her die from the curse.
|$241,410,378
|-
|''Marat/Sade''
|1967
|R
|Inmates in a French insane asylum in 1808 put on a play about [[French Revolution]] figure [[Jean-Paul Marat]], directed by the [[Marquis de Sade]], that devolves into a violent orgy of destruction at the end of the movie. Basically nothing more than a celebration of violence and nihilism, yet it is lauded by liberal movie critics.
|-
|''Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil''
|1997
|R
|Don't be fooled by the fact that Hollywood conservative, Clint Eastwood directed this film or that it both takes place and was filmed in the overall conservative city of Savannah, Georgia. It is based on the equally bad nonfiction novel of the same name, and has LGBT, environmentalist, witchcraft, and anti-capitalist themes.
|$25,105,255
|-
|''Moonlight''
|2016
|R
|A coming-of-age film that glorifies drug use and [[homosexuality]].
|$27,557,396 <ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moonlight2016.htm</ref>
|-
|''[[Mortal Engines (film)|Mortal Engines]]''
|2018
|PG-13
|This USA-New Zealand co-production pushes the feminist propaganda that endorses and celebrates anarchy. Also, it bears some "[[Plagiarism|similarities]]" to many classics, including ''[[Star Wars]]'' and ''[[Total Recall (2012 film)|Total Recall]]''. It presents some message underlying "[[climate change]]". Currently the once-in-a-lifetime adaptation of the [[Mortal Engines Quartet|novel series]] of the same name by [[Philip Reeve]] due to leftist narratives painting the film in a positive light.
|
|-
|''Movie 43''
|2013
|R
|Anthology of short "comedy" films which glamorize virtually every form of deviant sexuality imaginable. Much of the "humor" is scatological, including a scene with a character who enjoys being defecated upon. Aside from that, ''Movie 43'' is literally one of the worst motion pictures ever made in history, as it has nothing that would make it good, imaginative, funny, charming, or understandable of its existence at all. Won three Razzie awards: Worst Picture, Worst Director (all directors) and Worst Screenplay (all screenwriters).
|$32.4 million
|-
|''Mulholland Drive''
|2001
|R
|The makers of this nonsensical art film think homosexuality and fornication in general are "sexy" societal norms.
|$7,220,243
|-
|''My Own Private Idaho''
|1991
|R
|Two homosexual street hustlers begin having an affair while seeking adventure en route to Idaho and then Italy. One of the more infamous cinematic examples of the homosexual agenda.
|$6,401,336
|-
|''Natural Born Killers''
|1994
|R
|Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movie's main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as "heroes". Infamously known for influencing Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for committing the massacre at [[Columbine High School massacre]]<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-columbine-shooters/</ref>
|$50,282,766
|-
|''The Normal Heart''
|2014
|TV MA
|Another [[homosexual agenda|homosexual propaganda]] film that criticizes the [[Reagan Administration]] and general Conservative ideology. The LGBT community was a strong promoter of this film and insists it is "artful", when really it is decadent.
|N/A
|-
|''Nymphomaniac''
|2014
|NR
|This two-part movie features four hours of non-stop sex and glamorizes the lifestyle of the titular sex addict. It portrays other [[San Francisco values]], such as homosexuality and S&M, in a positive light. In general, this film was labeled as NSFW. Director, Lars von Trier, is known for being anti-American and slightly hints at this throughout the film.
|$17,584,083
|-
|''The Odd Life of Timothy Green''
|2012
|PG
|Despite an overly schmaltzy pro-family sentiment, this film showcases terrible parenting.
|$55.3 million
|-
|''One Sings, The Other Doesn't''
|1977
|Not Rated
|A disgusting French film that exists solely to promote abortion and normalize it as an essential part of being female.
|
|-
|''The Organizer''
|1963
|Not Rated
|This Italian film supports [[trade union]]s and [[infidelity]].
|
|-
|''Orgazmo''
|1997
|NC-17
|This pornographic nightmare celebrates the porn industry and criticizes [[Mormon]]s, if not all the world's religiously devout.
|$602,302
|-
|''Parasite''
|2019
|R
|This Korean film inexplicably won Best Picture at the Academy Awards even though it has a highly anti-capitalist message and portrays wealth as evil.
|$167,600,000
|-
|''Paul''
|2011
|R
|This extraterrestrial rescue mission could have been a harmless comedic tribute to the science fiction film genre if it didn't portray Christians and the military as close-minded idiots while depicting atheists (played by godless writers and co-stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) who support extramarital sex, homosexuality, and mind-altering drug use as the only "sensible" people. Pegg and Frost have explicitly stated that one of the movie's main messages is that "there is no God" and anyone who believes in Him is "an ignorant boob".
|$37,412,945
|-
|''The Perks of Being a Wallflower''
|2012
|PG-13
|Promotes homosexuality and also demonizes those opposed to a homosexual lifestyle.
|$17,738,570
|-
|''The People vs. Larry Flynt''
|1996
|R
|Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and claims that pornography is "protected" by the [[First Amendment]].
|$20,300,385
|-
|''Philadelphia''
|1993
|PG-13
|Homosexual agenda setting drama.
|$77,446,440
|-
|''Pineapple Express''
|2008
|R
|Shows [[drug abuse]] to be "cool".
|$87,341,380
|-
|''Pink Flamingos''
|1972
|NC-17
|Embraces horrifying people, who engage in such acts as [[incest]] and [[bestiality]], as well as promoting the homosexual agenda, since it stars transvestite Divine and shows homosexuals in a positive light. This film has toilet humor, finding it funny when a character (Divine) literally eats poo, and extremely offensive language, one character is even named after a racial slur against white people. Characters promote anarchy and violence as an everyday thing. A very graphic film, even for most liberals, showing close-ups of genitalia unlike any non-porno film. Liberals call it a "comedy", but it is revoltingly horrid and more like an act of [[Satan]].
|$7,000,000
|-
|''Project X''
|2012
|R
|Shows teen drinking, [[drug]] use, sex, vulgar profanity and anarchic behavior to be "cool".
|$54,731,865
|-
|''The Quick and the Dead''
|1995
|R
|A feminist western.
|$18,636,537
|-
|''Quills''
|2000
|R
|Portrays the Marquis de Sade as the protagonist, in addition to the prevalence of extremely violent acts.
|$11,732,088
|-
|''Resident Evil'' franchise
|2002-2017
|R
|Feminist film franchise with anti-capitalistic messages. Based on a video game franchise on the same name. The worst offender is ''Resident Evil: The Final Chapter'', where the villain is a [[Christian]] who releases a deadly virus (called the T-virus) which will destroy the human race and have him and rich colleagues rebuild the world in their image (a.k.a playing [[God]]).
|$244,443,938 (all together)
|-
|''Rise of the Planet of the Apes''
|2011
|PG-13
|Anti-business (the company the main character works for is painted in an extremely negative light), a lot of environmentalism throughout (including a more anti-human agenda being pushed), and the actor who played Caesar, Andy Serkis, as well as director Rupert Wyatt, both compared Caesar positively to the Marxist Argentinian revolutionary terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]].
|$481,801,049
|-
|''Rent''
|2005
|PG-13
|Promotes [[homosexuality]] and cross-dressing as "normal" lifestyles.
|$29,077,547
|-
|''Rock of Ages''
|2012
|PG-13 (Director's Cut is rated R)
|Based on the highly unoriginal and unimaginative Broadway musical, ''Rock of Ages'' features poor [[moral]]s, promotes homosexual agenda, prostitution, drug use, and drinking, and portrays conservatives in a negative, offensively bigoted viewpoint. Many gratuitous sex scenes and sexual references are prominently shown.
|$38,518,613
|-
|''Rocketman''
|2019
|R
|A biopic on [[Elton John]]. Mostly because of his influence, it has a gratuitous promotion of homosexuality and drug usage, and was particularly infamous for including an explicit sodomy scene.
|$195.2 million
|-
|''Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom''
|1975
|NR
|Adaptation of the [[sadist]] and [[Libertine]] and atheistic text by [[Marquis de Sade]] from Communist homosexual filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was killed shortly after completing this movie.
|
|-
|''Sex and the City''
|2008
|R
|Very disturbing film, much like its TV series counterpart, promoting the use of sex everywhere.
|$152,647,258.
|-
|''Sex Tape''
|2014
|R
|Anti-family. The main premise of the film was two nymphomaniacs trying to create a sex tape of themselves after getting kids killed their sex drive, and then recovering iPods that accidentally uploaded their tape online for everyone to see. The ending also has brief yet graphic sex scene showing what exactly was on the sex tape.
|$38,543,473
|-
|[[The Shack]]
|2017
|PG-13
|Based on the novel of the same name, this film promotes the ancient heresy of Patripassionism, presents God the Father contrarily to how he truly is according to scripture, and promotes the dangerous idea that God does not punish sin.<ref>https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Shack-review.html</ref>
|$96,942,115
|-
|''Shakespeare in Love''
|1998
|R
|Liberals changing history in order to suit feminists. The film also suggests that a woman was responsible for William Shakespeare's work (even though there's no record of this at all). Although it won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1998 (thanks to the aggressive campaign tactics of the egotistical producer Harvey Weinstein), the film has aged poorly and, to this day, the overwhelming majority of critics and film viewers believe that the conservative film and Steven Spielberg's masterpiece ''Saving Private Ryan'' should have won instead.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrNphaLsDs</ref>
|$100,317,794 
|-
|''The Shape of Water''
|2017
|R
|Disgusting pro-Bestiality and Feminist movie directed by Marxist film director Guillermo del Toro. Also encourages homosexuality and has hints of promoting illegal immigration.
|$54,185,844
|-
|''She Hate Me''
|2004
|R
|Taking jabs at capitalism and supporting the [[homosexual agenda]], this film has a very over the top plot were a man who's laid off from his job for exposing corrupt business practices, turns to impregnating wealthy lesbians for profit. (This really is the plot).
|$366,037
|-
|''Sixteen Candles''
|1984
|PG (Would be PG-13 today).
|Glorfies teenage sex, underage drinking, and cigarette smoking
|$23,686,027
|-
|''Small Soldiers''
|1998
|PG-13
|Anti-military (due to the Commando Elite being depicted in a negative manner, and to a certain extent GloboTech, the ones responsible for the bad events in the film, being stated to be a Defense Contractor) and also anti-Capitalist (due to GloboTech being the ones responsible for the events of the film, including buying out the Heartland Toy Company.).
|$71.1 million
|-
|''The Social Network''
|2010
|PG-13
|Glorifies the [[gossip]] website [[Facebook]], which feeds [[narcissism]] and destroys marriages. The film also portrays drug use and [[misogyny]] in a positive light.
|$96,962,694
|-
|''Spring Breakers''
|2012
|R
|From the creator of ''Kids'', this film is similar in its pornographic nature and glamorization of drug abuse, only this film takes it to a new extreme. Furthermore, this film promotes [[feminism]] and glamorizes the gangster/[[ghetto]] [[rap music]] lifestyle, while condemning Christians, labeling them as "weak" and "insecure". Also, the film contains a full-on sex scene in the pool, and show nudity, in not only that scene but several others.
|$31,724,284
|-
|''Star Trek Beyond''
|2016
|PG-13
|The film has [[Sulu|Hikaru Sulu]] as a "married" homosexual with an adopted daughter, which was a decision that even [[George Takei]] (Sulu's original actor and a prominent homosexual activist) took issue with.<ref>http://time.com/4398071/george-takei-simon-pegg-sulu-gay-star-trek-beyond/</ref>
|$343.5 million
|-
|''The Stepford Wives''
|1975
|R
|[[Feminist]] [[polemic]]. Ends with the protagonist beating her husband with an iron fireplace poker. The film's release coincided with the height of the [[ERA]] movement.
|$4 million
|-
|''Stonewall''
|2015
|R
|Based on the 1969 Stonewall Riots, this film is a pro-homosexual film that pushes the homosexual agenda. It's rather ironic to note that the film, itself, is a victim of historical revisionism, offensive racial stereotypes, and exclusion of the representation of minorities. While the filmmakers tried to defend their artistic decisions, the film was overwhelmingly criticized by critics and audiences (even liberals, not surprisingly, hated the film) and failed to make its play for awards consideration during the 2015 Oscar season.
|$187,674
|-
|''Straight Outta Compton''
|2015
|R
|Glorifies the gangster lifestyle and gangster rap, and portrays the police as racist, along with other anti-police aspects.
|$161,197,785
|-
|''Superbad''
|2007
|R
|Promotes the teenage use of drugs, smoking, alcohol and sex. The whole point of the movie is for a couple of guys to lose their virginity. The movie contains many uses of profanity, underage drinking, and drug use.
|$121,463,226
|-
|''Taking Woodstock''
|2009
|R
|Glorifies the anarchistic and chaotic Woodstock festival in 1969 as well as the Hippie Movement, painting their various lewd actions, including homosexuality, in a positive light. Also has some elements of anti-Semitism due to the main character's parents who acted as Holocaust survivors being portrayed in an unsympathetic light.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2009/08/28/taking-woodstock-mythologizing-the-worst-generation/</ref>
|$10 million
|-
|''Tammy''
|2014
|R
|Movie about a lazy unemployed woman who after losing her job, basically turns to a life of crime. As the film is about her and her grandma hitting the road, committing robberies, doing illegal prescription drugs, and buying beers for teenagers. They have a Fourth of July party with no typical festivities, and is more like a drunken sex party, as the grandma reveals her breasts to the guest (the audience does not see them though).
|$84,525,432
|-
|''Tank Girl''
|1995
|R
|Based on the left-wing comic, this film glorifies feminism and debauchery while making the capitalists the bad guys.
|$4,064,495
|-
|''Thank You For Smoking''
|2006
|R
|The title is self-exploratory, depicts cigarette endorsers as heroes.
|$24,793,509
|-
|''That's My Boy''
|2012
|R (originally NC-17)
|Depsite staring conservative actor Adams Sandler this films depicts pedophilia, statutory rape, gerontophilia, child neglect, incest, and other forms of aberrant sexuality as "funny".
|$57.7 million
|-
|''There's Something About Mary''
|1998
|R
|Contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions.
|$176,484,651
|-
|''To Find a Man''
|1972
|
|Pretty much a 90-minute abortion propaganda film.
|
|-
|''Trash H*****s''
|2010
|NR
|Shows decadent behavior in a positive light and glamorizes sexual deviancy. Also the film is riddled with profanity, even the title has a naughty word (which was censored here).
|
|-
|''Uncle Sam''
|1996
|R
|Depicts the heroes as a jaded amputated war veteran and a draft dodger, and the main villain as an extremely sociopathic soldier who joined the Army to kill as many people as he wanted, and the latter is depicted as being hyper-patriotic.
|$2,000,000
|-
|''Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)''
|2007
|PG-13
|Baselessly supports illegal immigration despite a pro-family sentiment.
|$23,311,391
|-
|''Up In Smoke''
|1978
|R
|Stoner film that just promotes the use of smoking marijuana.
|$44,364,244
|-
|''Waterworld''
|1995
|PG-13
|Suggests that "[[global warming]]" was real, and the Earth has now become a flooded post-apocalyptic wasteland.
|$88,246,220
|-
|''The Wolf of Wall Street''
|2013
|R
|Blatantly promotes excessive, endless drug use, portraying it in a positive light, and claiming that illegal drugs such as [[heroin]] give people the will to keep working hard and stay focused and positive, as well as various forms of graphic and illicit sexual activity and voyeurism, (both heterosexual and in one scene, homosexual) and non-stop use of the f-word and hundreds of other profanities throughout. Portrays capitalists on [[Wall Street]] as greedy self-absorbed criminals obsessed with sex, drugs and violence in the form of the protagonist Jordan Belfort. Many audiences were shocked that this did not receive an NC-17 rating upon its release, especially since morality-deprived director [[Martin Scorsese]] broke the ''[[South Park]]'' movie's record for most uses of the F-word with his film. Christina McDowell, the daughter of Tom Prousalis, one of the people involved in Belfort's crimes, wrote a memoir on the subject specifically to call out Scorsese and DiCaprio for failing to recognize the victims of Belfort in the film, something even the most praiseworthy critics of the film admitted was a flaw.
|$116,900,694
|-
|''A Wrinkle in Time''
|2018
|PG
|A live action adaptation of the book of the same name by Disney, the film managed to completely cut out many references to Jesus Christ and biblical verses, as well as completely altered the joyous singing to remove any reference to God.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/faith/disneys-wrinkle-time-erases-books-bible-quotes-cuts-jesus-christian-figures-history/</ref> Needless to say, it opened to a box office bomb.<ref>https://movieweb.com/a-wrinkle-in-time-movie-review-2018/</ref>
|$132.6 million
|-
|''W.R.: Mystery of the Organism''
|1971
|NR
|Essentially a plotless film riddled with disgusting orgies.
|
|-
|''Whatever Works''
|2009
|PG-13
|A promotion of liberal values including homosexuality, nihilism, and various forms of sexual deviancy such as May-December Romances, misanthropy, and promiscuity, and also implies that even those with the strongest faith in Christianity and conservative have it vanish in an instant upon setting foot in New York City.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2009/07/16/whatever-works-doesnt/</ref> Also notable as Woody Allen overtly pushing nihilism and complete selfishness as an absolute positive, in stark contrast to past films where he at least depicted some negative consequences to selfish behavior.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2009/07/03/Review--Whatever-Works/</ref>
|$35.1 million<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=whateverworks.htm</ref>
|-
|''X-Men'' franchise
|2000-2019
|PG-13 (R for Deadpool & Deadpool 2)
|Unlike the comics they're based on (which were about civil rights)<ref>https://www.nuskool.com/learn/lesson/mlk-and-malcolm-x-the-civil-rights-movement-and-the-x-men-origins/</ref> liberals used this movie franchise to further the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref><ref>http://www.cracked.com/article_20497_5-great-movies-with-mind-blowing-symbolism-you-didnt-notice.html</ref> Bryan Singer director of four of the films (whom is also homosexual) was also cited for sexual assault of a minor.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/media/in-lawsuit-director-of-new-x-men-film-is-accused-of-sexual-assault.html?rref=homepage&_r=0</ref> And the sexual abuse has continued to this day especially with the various similar scandals that came out in Hollywood starting with Harvey Weinstein.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/11/08/usc-taking-student-petition-remove-bryan-singers-name-cinema-school-seriously/</ref> Likewise, it was noted that Singer during filming for the first movie did not allow for the comics to be on the set, despite the film being based on them.<ref>http://fourcolormedmon.blogspot.com/2017/11/3-filmmakers-working-on-comics-projects.html</ref> It was also anti-Military, especially in the second film and to some extent X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as the main villain, William Stryker, was the head of a para-military group and depicted as very genocidal against mutants, and was also implied to be a Vietnam War veteran. This had been added in by screenwriter David Hayter, due to his experiences with the ''[[Metal Gear Solid]]'' series.
|$1,817,894,919 (all together)
|-
|}

==Animated films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''Alpha and Omega''
|2010
|PG
|This animated film about wolves promotes disorderly conduct based on the zany antics of an omega wolf named Humphrey. It can be seen as pro-environmentalist as well because some members of the wolf pack try to start eating berries as opposed to caribou, despite wolves being natural carnivores. Alpha wolves are painted in an elitist light for being determined and hard workers. One female wolf named Kate can be described as a modern feminist. Similarly to the other liberal film, ''Open Season'', it spawned multiple unneeded direct-to-video sequels. It is also somewhat comparable to the other liberal film called ''Barnyard: The Original Party Animals'', only in that movie's case, it had a subsequent television series called ''Back at the Barnyard'' as opposed to film sequels.
|$25,107,267
|-
|''Alpha and Omega'' sequels
|2013-2017
|PG
|These direct-to-video sequels follow the characters from the first ''Alpha and Omega'' movie, along with showing themes from that film. The sequels encourage disobedient behavior, for the pups of Kate and Humphrey often ignore their parents telling them to stay at home; they even try justifying this by telling their parents in the sixth movie that they get into "situations" by being told to be kind and caring. An instance of racism is shown in the fifth film by three porcupines being told to be friends because they look alike.
|N/A (Direct to Video)
|-
|''Animals United'' (Konferenz der Tiere in German)
|2010
|PG
|A meerkat and a vegetarian lion journey with other animals from around the world (a polar bear, two tortoises, a kangaroo, a Tasmanian devil, and a rooster) to take down a dam built by humans, which had caused the Okavango Delta to dry up. This movie promotes a heavy environmentalist message, with the animals saying that all humans are causing bad things to happen all around the world (like a polar bear's snowy home to melt and the Outback to catch on fire). At the end of the movie, many animals start storming the cities, even news reporters saying that the animals are going to make the humans pay for ruining the world.
|£2,133,051
|-
|''The Ant Bully''
|2006
|PG
|This pro-Communist film's main message of the power of the individual to be more powerful than one another is a bad thing. The exterminator, apparently the main antagonist, is vilified for simply doing his job, thus giving the animation an environmentalist message.
|$28,142,535
|-
|''Astro Boy''
|2009
|PG
|Based loosely on the 1952 manga and 1963 anime, liberal producers and writers twisted the cartoon to fit their [[Communist]] agenda.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Jqlxd7ufM</ref> This strategy backfired, however, and the film was a critical failure.<ref>http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/astro-boys-abysmal-opening-and-imagis-sinking-ship-17586.html</ref>
|$19,551,067
|-
|''Barnyard: The Original Party Animals''
|2006
|PG
|Set on a barnyard where animals speak and behave like humans in the absence of real humans, this ''Lion King'' clone stars a bull who witnesses his father die after being wounded by coyotes, then gradually accepts the responsibilities that come with being the leader of his animal community. Nevertheless, ''Barnyard'' accepts disorderly conduct because the animals still party recklessly, even with a serious, dedicated bull in charge. Plus, it portrays humans as either ignorant or stupid and persecutes coyotes for being carnivores. The neurotic ferret Freddy goes to liberal lengths to avoid temptation to eat his rooster friend by becoming a [[vegetarianism|vegetarian]]. Not only that, but the bulls lack horns and have female udders, and there are brief scenes referencing alcohol and gambling.
|$116,500,000
|-
|''Battle for Terra''
|2007
|PG
|This animation has environmentalist overtones and portrays a Bible-quoting, American-esque military general as the main antagonist.
|$1,647,083
|-
|''Brave''
|2012
|PG
|One of Pixar's less memorable animations stars Merida, a feminist Medieval Scottish princess who refuses to marry, believing it will cause her to lose her life of archery and adventure, thus demonstrating poor family values throughout. Of course, because this is a feminist propaganda piece, the men in the film are oafish compared to the women, too. Egregiously, Merida was added to the Disney Princess lineup regardless of the poor morals she demonstrates throughout the film and being created by Pixar, not by Disney directly. Also has a smiliar setting to Great Conservative Film; How to Train Your Dragon which was released two year before.
|$540.4 million
|-
|''Cars 2''
|2011
|G
|This Pixar sequel demonizes oil companies while aggrandizing ethanol (mentioned as Allinall). On the film's political agenda, director John Lasseter commented: "Why isn't alternative fuel more... Why isn't everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There's ethanol. There's all this stuff you could be doing. And so I thought, well, that could be really cool in that you could have big oil versus alternative fuel. That's when we kind of crafted the bad guy's story."
|$191,450,875
|-
|''Chicken Little''
|2005
|G
|This painfully unoriginal animation, which was adapted from a 1943 World War II propaganda short by conservative filmmaker Walt Disney (which was itself adapted from one of Aesop's fables), ridicules family values, especially when the title chicken's widower father, Buck "Ace" Cluck, is shown to be willing to disown his son. Later on, when the aliens proceed to attempt to invade and detonate Earth, it is simply because they thought it is a living organism that kidnapped one of their children. The film is borderline nihilistic because the townspeople are mean-spirited and frequently bully Chicken Little, and a brief gag implies that warping someone's mind against their will is acceptable. As one of the worst theatrical productions ever made by the Walt Disney Company under [[Michael Eisner]], the film's mean-spirited and deeply cynical plot line is suspected to have been done to compete with [[DreamWorks]] animated films helmed by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]].
|$135,386,665
|-
|''Delhi Safari''
|2012
|PG
|A leopard cub and his mother in India join a gang of animals (a bear, a monkey, and a pet parrot) in their journey to Delhi to make the humans stop destroying their homes. This movie is very environmentalist, examples being the parrot Alex pleading with the humans to "share the world" with the animals, which results in laws of environmentalism being passed and apartment buildings being cancelled.
|$3.10 million
|-
|''Delgo''
|2008
|PG
|This pagan film has horrible scenes of violence, war, and mass murder. It performed so horribly at the box office that it was criticized for potentially traumatizing young children and was pulled from theaters after a week. It is currently the lowest-grossing computer animated film of all time.
|$694,782
|-
|''The Emoji Movie''
|2017
|PG (Should be PG-13 for multiple references to the dreaded S-word in profanity)
|Not only is this film clearly an infomercial for various smartphone applications and features thinly disguised as an unoriginal take on the "hero's journey" story archetype, but it appears to devalue human language: the main teenager Alex can only win over his crush by communicating via text messages comprised exclusively of emojis, and a background teenager even says, "Words aren't cool". Openly homosexual writer and director Anthony "Tony" Leondis considers the movie a deeply personal project for him: the main character is a sentient emoji who is different from his friends with his ability to show multiple expressions, which reflects Leondis' laughable belief that he is an outcast when, in reality, Hollywood praises that sort of sinful sexuality. The film briefly glorifies [[Facebook]], the world's largest social network and a hotbed for narcissism and relationship destruction; gives minor lip service to feminism in the form of Jailbreak, a computer hacker girl emoji who refuses to be the princess emoji she was created to be; and has been unfavorably compared to ''Wreck-It Ralph'' and ''Inside Out'', two great conservative animations, plus the ambiguously conservative ''LEGO Movie''.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydvQB-4bBfQ</ref> Worst of all, TJ Miller, who voices the lead emoji, once said the film is a subtle protest against [[Donald Trump]] based on allegations that Trump wants to censor Hollywood and other liberally biased media.
|$25,650,000
|-
|''FernGully: The Last Rainforest''
|1992
|G
|Environmental [[propaganda]], with an anti-industry message, is indoctrinated into children.
|$24,650,296
|-
|''Food Fight''
|2012
|PG
|Aside from being considered one of the worst computer animated films, the film vilifies capitalism and leading companies.
|N/A
|-
|''Free Birds''
|2013
|PG
|This animated film's main premise is about taking turkey off of the Thanksgiving menu.
|$55,750,480
|-
|''Gnomeo and Juliet''
|2011
|PG
|This disturbing love story contains a joke that could be interpreted as passing off bestiality (in this case, with a garden gnome, which is normally an ''inanimate object'') as funny.
|$194 million
|-
|''Happy Feet''
|2006
|PG
|This environmentalist film pushes the envelope to some extent with sexual humor and implied persecution against Christians.<ref name="6 Kids Films Filled with Green Propaganda">https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/3/22/6-kids-films-filled-with-green-propaganda/2/</ref>
|$198,000,317
|-
|''Happy Feet 2''
|2011
|PG
|Like the first ''Happy Feet'', it does not push the envelope too much as far as sexual humor goes, but it goes even further with themes of environmentalism as it pushes the global warming agenda. Staunch liberal actors Matt Damon and Brad Pitt voice two krill who are implied to be homosexual.<ref name="6 Kids Films Filled with Green Propaganda" />
|$64,006,466
|-
|''Home''
|2015
|PG
|Contains environmental, illegal immigration messages, and somewhat supports the homosexual agenda as well.
|$177,397,510
|-
|''The Hunchback of Notre Dame''
|1996
|G
|Released during liberal maniac [[Michael Eisner]]'s reign of terror at Disney, the film does everything in its power to persecute Christians. The original source material was not intended for children, yet the Disney film was marketed as such to young audiences. In some cases, the film actually manages to be even darker than the original book by Victor Hugo: originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was out of corporal punishment; while in the Disney film, it had been done at the whim of the Parisians just for the sake of it. To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris was also the victim of arson late into the film. This is a stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''The Jungle Book'', in which Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). Even worse, the DVD commentary for the film boasted that they deliberately had the villain, Judge Claude Frollo, when symbolically falling to hell in "Hellfire", assuming the pose of the crucifix.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> Some mild language is present, too (namely the word "damnation" and "eternal damnation"). Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is explicitly male, which means that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame. There is also a bit of forced diversity in the movie as well, as Esmerelda is altered to be a full Gypsy by birth (in the original book, she was in fact ethnically French, the daughter of a French anchoress, and had been abducted by gypsies and raised by them).
|$100,138,851
|-
|The Legend of Frosty the Snowman
|2005
|Not Rated
|This film is a bastardization of the original [[Frosty the Snowman]] special in which it retcons almost everything to push an anti-comformity message and presents youth rebellion in a positive light.
|
|-
|''The Legend of the Titanic''
|1999
|Not Rated
|This animation bastardizes a horrific, tragic historical event in the name of making a statement against the whaling industry.
|
|-
|''Mars Needs Moms''
|2011
|PG
|A 9-year-old boy named Milo defies his mother, behaves in disorderly conduct, and is somewhat [[Nihilist|nihilistic]]. Family values are poked fun at. It also has a brief scene poking fun at the great conservative leader, [[Ronald Reagan]].
|$39 million
|-
|''My Little Pony: The Movie''
|2017
|G
|Based on the bad [[anime]]-influenced liberal television series ''My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic'', this unnecessary film has the same liberal messages, relating to witchcraft, feminism, socialism, and environmentalism.
|$21,885,107
|-
|''Norm of the North''
|2016
|PG
|This poorly-received animation makes an environmentalist polar bear the hero and vilifies major businesses in the form of a greedy real estate mogul in a possible jab at Donald Trump. Three sequels promoting the same environmental message have been released since 2019.
|$24.8 million
|-
|''The Nut Job''
|2014
|PG
|An incorrigibly self-serving exiled squirrel finds himself helping his former park creatures survive by raiding a nut store, which celebrates disorderly conduct, nonconformity, and environmentalism. One of the antagonists is a head businessman because he does not comply with environmentalism.
|$64,251,541
|-
|''The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature''
|2017
|PG
|In the sequel to ''The Nut Job'', the businessman villain returns to try to build an amusement park, again persecuted for not being an environmentalist.
|$26,989,904 (Still in Theaters)
|-
|''Open Season''
|2006
|PG
|Although conservative star Gary Sinise appears, environmentalism and hate speech against hunters runs rampant.
|$85,105,259
|-
|''Over the Hedge''
|2006
|PG
|Based upon the comic strip of the same name, animals who are struggling to steal food from trash for the winter are the heroes, while humans are painted as ignorant, uncaring towards animals (clearly an environmentalist message), and obsessed with food. Plus, a businesswoman is the main antagonist, and an exterminator is scorned for simply doing his job. In addition, one of the other main antagonists of the film (and the only animal main antagonist), Vincent the Bear, is villainized for forcing RJ the Raccoon to replace the food he had after the latter in a botched attempt to steal food that Vincent had hoarded for the winter ended up accidentally destroying the food stash, with an ad-libbed scene in the climax having Vincent admit that he got where he was by "backstabbing, betraying, and murdering" those that placed trust in him, which can be interpreted as a dig against Capitalism and the concept of private property.
|$155,019,340
|-
|''ParaNorman''
|2012
|PG
|The very ending of the film pulls a swerve and reveals that one of the characters, Mitch Downe, as being homosexual, ignoring the fact that he was not even implied to be that earlier. This decision had been made by the director Chris Butler.
|$107.1 million
|-
|''Peter Rabbit''
|2018
|G
|The movie was a complete trashing of the popular British children's book series of the same name, promoting environmentalism by having the rightful owner of the farm, Thomas MacGregor, be vilified simply for trying to farm the vegetable garden that legally belonged to him, and the various farm animals being portrayed positively in interfering with his business, with one of their plans against MacGregor even going so far as to have Peter Rabbit murder him by exploiting a food allergy that he had and it is treated in a positive manner. It was such that even the liberal website [[TV Tropes]] grudgingly acknowledged under the articles "Unintentionally Sympathetic" and "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" that Thomas was closer to being in the right than Peter and his friends were.
|$146,983,492
|-
|''Pocahontas''
|1995
|G
|This feminist story follows a highly fictionalized account of the life of [[Native American]] [[Pocahontas]] with an environmental message; and the Native American’s view against English settlers is similar to Howard Zinn's revisionist history textbook ''A People's History of the United States'', which would entered public knowledge and provided to universities, colleges, and high schools across America two years later (see ''Good Will Hunting''). The titular character enters what is implied to be an unfaithful relationship with John Smith over fellow Native American Kokoum, and her decision is treated in a comparatively positive light; while the English settlers are vilified simply for establishing the early American colonies to find Jamestown, and John Ratcliffe in particular was demonized as having the motive of trying to establish a gold mine and being greedy, despite gold never being the motive for Ratcliffe, which could be interpreted as a dig against capitalism. Following the Best Picture nomination of ''Beauty and the Beast'' at the 64th Academy Awards and its subsequent loss in March 1992, then-studio chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg opted to produce another animated sweeping romantic epic in hopes of achieving a cinematic masterpiece status and replicating another Best Picture nomination, even if he intended to distort history and add both a love story and environmental themes. In fact, many people at Disney had high hopes for ''Pocahontas'', while deeming the concept of another film in production, ''The Lion King'' as experimental. To their surprise, ''The Lion King'' became one of the greatest animated motion pictures of all time, while ''Pocahontas'' received mixed critical reviews and below-than-expected box office receipts.
|$141,579,773
|-
|''Pokémon: Zoroark - Master of Illusions''
|2010 (Japan); 2011 (America)
|G
|The anime film's villain is a successful businessman, which is a statement against capitalism, and one of the main protagonists of the film, Karl (perhaps named for [[Karl Marx]]), is based on the radical left-wing schlockumentarian Michael Moore.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20130122121711/http://www.gamefreak.co.jp/blog/art/wp-content/images/1008/kuruto.jpg</ref>
|
|-
|''Princess Mononoke''
|1997
|PG-13
|Environmentalist, feminist anime film on on steroids, where the forest gods are at war with a mining colony (whom are portrayed as the "bad guys").
|$2,375,308
|-
|''Quest for Camelot''
|1998
|G
|This revisionist take on Arthurian legend throws everything that makes the source material great (Christianity, heroism, bravery, etc.) out the window for the sake of advocating feminism and wanting to be as worthy a Disney animated musical film (Its from Warner Bros), only to be panned by critics in the end. Even though it's suppose to a G-rated family comedy, an incest joke appears as well.<ref>https://www.imdb.com/character/ch0100869/quotes</ref>
|$22,510,798
|-
|''Sausage Party''
|2016
|R
|As the first R-rated American animated film to be released by a major film studio in the United States following 1999's ''South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut'', ''Sausage Party'' blatantly criticizes religion and deceives audiences into think that, without religion and the existence of God, everyone can enjoy the most selfish, crude, and debauched activities (e.g. humanism, homosexuality, obscenity, and non-stop sexual intercourse) without guilt or a sense of a "religious obligation". Made by Nitrogen Studios. A typical offensive and raunchy comedy film by modern Hollywood standards, directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan, producer Megan Ellison, producer/writer Evan Goldberg, and producer/writer/actor Seth Rogen (all of them fiercely liberal and some, ironically, of Jewish origin) made this film to bastardize the animation genre, as well as to push the liberal Hollywood agenda on politics and religion. Animated feature films, for the past century, have enthralled and enhanced audiences around the world, as the best ones tell timely stories that children, teenagers, and adults alike can relate to and enjoy. The makers of ''Sausage Party'' seemed to not care about any of this, as they made this untimely film strictly for adults, as they believed that there aren't and should be any animated films for adults only to enjoy. Their warped belief is made very clear by the film's criticism and parody of many other animated films (namely Disney animations) as well as the presence of regular Disney collaborator Alan Menken as the film's songwriter. Altogether, ''Sausage Party'' is painfully unfunny and has virtually no plot or philosophical merit. Upon release, only liberally biased film critics praised the film, while general audiences were repulsed by it.

On a side note, ''Sausage Party'' has attracted a great deal of criticism on two additional issues. First, the animators worked under poor, cruel conditions and were forced by the directors to work overtime without pay. Thirty-six of the 83 animators were blacklisted and went uncredited in the film, believed to be due to their complaints; comments made in anonymous interviews of some of the animators involved in the project by ''Variety'', ''The Washington Post'', and ''The Hollywood Reporter'' alleged that the comments were accurate. All the animators in the film were told outright that they would be blacklisted if they did not work overtime without pay. Second, a red-band trailer for the film was accidentally played before a showing of the Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios' PG-rated and family-oriented ''Finding Dory'', at a Concord, California multiplex in mid-June 2016.<ref>http://ew.com/article/2016/06/29/theater-plays-sausage-party-trailer-before-finding-dory-apologizes/</ref> The theater staff had forgotten to switch out an adult-audience trailer roll for one meant for G and PG-rated films, when adding additional screens to carry ''Finding Dory'' to meet audience demand. The incident occurred only once, and the theater apologized, while Rogen [[Twitter|tweeted]] that the story "made his day".
|$89,645,124
|-
|''The Secret World of Arrietty''
|2010
|G
|Japanese anime film is about a tiny homeless family that steals from regular people. Demonizes capitalism and promotes redistribution of wealth.
|$19,202,743
|-
|''[[Shark Tale]]''
|2004
|PG
|Promotes multiculturalism and the deuteragonist of the film is a great white shark who is a vegetarian. Besides for being pro-vegan it is also a metaphor for being homosexual.<ref>http://gaylife.about.com/od/moviestheatre/a/sharktale.htm</ref>
|$160,861,908
|-
|''Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairytale''
|2012
|N/A
|An animated film written by [[Fred Glass]], narrated by [[Ed Asner]], and made for the California Federation of Teachers. It repeated rhetoric made by the [[Occupy Wall Street]] group about taxing the rich to have "their fair share" and demonized Capitalism in various ways, including blaming it on Asian sweatshops as well as the housing bubble bursting in 2008. [[Kirsten Powers]], a member of [[The Daily Beast]], and herself no stranger to liberal politics, acknowledged alongside conservative economist for ''The Daily Caller'' Tucker Carson on the Sean Hannity show that the cartoon was simply inexcusable and disgusting, with Sean Hannity also explicitly referring to it as a "disgusting hit piece".<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sean-hannity-slams-ed-asner-398102</ref><ref>http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121206006-ca-union-class.html</ref> The film was particularly infamous for a scene where, in a segment covering the trickle-down effect, a corpulent rich man representing the 1% of wealthy Americans, after having the scales literally stacked up in his favor regarding money, upon being asked why the 1% needed so much money, he responded "Don't worry, this is good for you too, it will trickle down from us to you", with the latter statement being accompanied with a graphic of the rich man proceeding to urinate on the other ordinary people as they yell in protest. Although later versions freeze the footage just before the man pees on the crowd in response to the complaints about the scene, it was still implied by residual audio of the urine stream. Sean Hannety and Michelle Malkin of the Sean Hannety Show both expressed disgust with the video when covering it, and when one of the producers confronted Ed Asner as the latter was about to attend one of his roles at a play, the latter falsely claimed he didn't remember what he said on it, and also claimed that the bit about rich people peeing on poor people was disgusting only because it should have been in reverse, and then asked the producer if he had any money, and if so, if he should "p*** on [the producer]."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr1ZzsAzq_M</ref>
|N/A
|-
|''Tentacolino'' (AKA ''In Search of the Titanic'')
|2004
|Not Rated
|The notorious sequel to ''The Legend of the Titanic'' stars the characters of the first movie trying to find the sunken [[RMS Titanic]] only to be taken to the mythical city of Atlantis. This North Korean film paints being held prisoner in a positive light, for the king of Atlantis forces the main characters to stay in Atlantis forever, and Don Juan even willingly submits to being taken prisoner. It also shows disrespect towards the tragedy of the Titanic by referring to the Titanic as "mythical". Family values are even tossed aside where the main characters are more concerned about seeing Atlantis again than their families back home.
|€4,000,000
|-
|''A Troll in Central Park''
|1994
|G
|Considered by many to be Don Bluth's worst film, the movie stars a troll named Stanley exiled from the Land of Trolls and ends up in Central Park, meeting two children. The end of the movie has an environmental message when Stanley causes plants to grow all over the city, potentially causing trouble for people in New York City.
|$71,368
|-
|}

==Schlockumentaries==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[The 11th Hour]]''
|2007
|PG
|This environmental schlockumentary produced and narrated by actor [[Leonardo DiCaprio]] endorses the theory of [[Anthropogenic global warming]].
|$707,343
|-
|Almost any film directed by [[Michael Moore]]
|
|
|All of his "documentaries" are composed of left-wing propaganda, promoting concepts such as universal health care, socialism, anti-Capitalist views, and gun control, and if that's not enough, he blatantly skews facts to push his agenda.
|
|-
|''American Factory''
|2019
|
|Don't let the title fool you into thinking it is patriotic. It covers the Chinese takeover of a GM plant as well as socialism in a positive light, and was made by the production company that the Obamas formed. The documentary gained additional notoriety when one of the producers of the film, Julia Reichert, quoted Karl Marx during her acceptance speech.<ref>https://us24news.com/blog/2020/02/10/oscars-go-communist-winning-producer-quotes-karl-marx-and-obama-praises-her/</ref>
|
|-
|''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''
|2006
|PG
|[[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
|$24,146,161
|-
|''An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power''
|2017
|PG
|Unanswered sequel to Al Gore's 2006 schlockumentary, ''An Inconvenient Truth''.
|
|-
|''Arctic Tale''
|2007
|G
|A documentary film geared towards children that pushes the false narrative of global warming and polar bears going extinct from melting ice caps.
|$1,858,064
|-
|''Better This World''
|2011
|Not Rated
|2011 documentary "feature length lie" is a [[PBS]] film regarding the thwarted domestic terrorist attack at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]] and liberals attempt to re-write history.
|NA-TV
|-
|''Blackfish''
|2013
|PG-13
|A [[CNN]] documentary film about the captivity of Tilikum, an orca involved in the deaths of three individuals, and the consequences of keeping orcas in captivity, that is nothing but a propaganda film full of so many lies.<ref>https://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/</ref> The film gained high ratings on movie review websites, making it seem the film brainwashes critics.
|$2,073,582
|-
|''[[Bowling for Columbine]]''
|2002
|R
|A 2002 schlockumentary directed by and starring [[leftist]] propagandist Michael Moore. It is a pro-[[gun control]] film and distorts facts in favor of gun-grabbing. Also included a "Brief history of the USA" segment using animation mirroring that of [[South Park]], that distorted historical facts to make it seem as though guns were implemented by racists, which actually led to the South Park [[libertarian]] creators to condemn him, enough to give Moore a cameo in Team America as a suicide bomber and make his death especially graphic.
|$21,576,018
|-
|Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey
|2014
|TV-PG
|Darwinism and global warming alarmism are disguised as science.
|N/A
|-
|''Fahrenheit 11/9''
|2018
|R
| [[Donald Trump]] hit piece by none other than Michael Moore. Trump got the last laugh as it ended up flopping at the box office <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2HyTh_6iyA</ref>
|-
|''The God Who Wasn't There'
|2005
|NR
|This documentary by noted skeptic [[Brian Flemming]] attempts to reinforce the massive wave of atheist propaganda from the internet.
|
|-
|''[[Jesus Camp]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|This baseless attack on conservative Christianity later incited [[liberal vandalism]] of the Bible camp shown in the film.
|$902,544
|-
|''Hail Satan''
|2019
|R
|Attempts to "humanize" followers of [[The Satanic Temple]] and literal [[satanism]], specifically depicting them as they try to get their monuments to [[Satan]] on government property and push their evil ideology on children, all while vilifying Christian values and portraying Conservative activists like Jason Rapert, an Arkansas State Senator who successfully got a monument of the [[10 Commandments]] erected in front of the Arkansas State Capitol building, as un-patriotic bigots.
|
|-
|''Hearts and Minds''
|1974
|Not Rated
|A documentary about the Vietnam War that was inherently anti-American in its nature. Also, depicts [[Catholic]]s as bigots. It also had a brief clip at the beginning which had the rolling crew having one of the higher officers forced to talk to them with the false promise that they'd burn the tape once he is finished with it. It also has several moments of graphic sex between soldiers and Vietnamese prostitutes. It also implies throughout the film that several atrocities conducted by the North Vietnamese communists were done by Americans, including the footage where a girl ends up burned by [[napalm]] and running out naked. Noteworthy for being almost single-handedly responsible for forcing America out of Vietnam (even having the NVA mailing the producers thanking them for "ensuring peace" in Vietnam) as well as it being an influence for far-left schlockumentarist/propagandist Michael Moore, with some of its filming techniques even being reused for ''Farenheit 9/11''.
|Unknown
|-
|''Inside Job''
|2010
|PG-13
|Democrat donor Charles Ferguson blames the Great Recession of 2008 on Wall Street, unspecified deregulations, the Bush Administration, and so on. He whitewashes [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]]'s role and virtually eschews any mention of the Community Reinvestment Act. While advertised as nonpartisan, it contains various interviews with Democratic politicians but none with Republican politicians. Finally, Ferguson blames the financial system for corrupting American politics.
|$4,312,735
|-
|''[[Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup]]''
|2009
|
|[[Truthers]] Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe blame America for [[9/11]]. Conspiracy Theorist [[Alex Jones]] worked as Executive Producer (and don't let his paleoconservative/libertarian views fool you into thinking it is in any way a conservative documentary).
|Unknown
|-
|''Lost in Tel Aviv''
|2008
|Not Rated
|A couple strives to make a filthy, [[South Park]]-esque animated series.
|Unknown
|-
|''Makers: Women who Make America''
|2013-2014
|Unrated
|A documentary glorifying [[Feminism]], in particular, the faction that started with [[Betty Friedan]]'s ''The Second Sex''. Also features as examples of role models and pioneers of feminism such degenerates as [[Lena Dunham]] (creator of the liberal TV series ''Girls''), Linda Woolverton, [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Ellen DeGeneres]], [[Jane Fonda]], and [[Gloria Allred]]. On top of that, there's no mention of conservatives [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Sarah Palin]], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Michele Bachman]] or [[Carly Fiorina]]. Only showing more of their bias.
|N/A
|-
|''McLibel''
|1997 (TV version)
2005 (Extended version)
|
|The fast food industry is blamed for environmental issues in a manner similar to ''Super Size Me'' and the liberal book ''Fast Food Nation''. Unsurprisingly, Morgan Spurlock, the director of ''Super Size Me'', and Eric Schlosser, author of ''Fast Food Nation'', are present.
|
|-
|''Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God''
|2012
|NR
|Liberal Alex Gibney attacks Christianity.
|
|-
|''Religulous''
|2008
|R
|[[Militant atheism|Militant atheist]] "Comedian" [[Bill Maher]] tries to convince the audience of what he perceives to be the folly of all religion, with a special focus on Christianity.
|$13,011,160
|-
|''[[The Road We’ve Traveled]]''
|2012
|Not rated
|[[Tom Hanks]] directs & narrates Barack Obama's supposed achievements
|NA
|-
|''Roger & Me''
|1989
|R
|[[Michael Moore]] blames capitalism for the downfall of Flint, Michigan instead of the [[trade unions]] that bullied businesses & forced them to ship jobs overseas (due to excessive taxation) or the fact that Flint has been under [[Democratic]] leadership since 1973. Later on, Moore would also admit that he never interviewed Roger Smith.<ref>http://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2007/06/16/2717913.htm</ref>
|$6,706,368
|-
|''The Selling of the Pentagon''
|1971
|NR
|CBS pushed this anti-American/anti-Vietnam War propaganda. The producers refused to divulge their sources to the Pentagon, and at least one of the officials involved entered a minor lawsuit against CBS.<ref name="Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning">https://www.weeklystandard.com/print/dan-rathers-day-of-reckoning/article/5895</ref>
|
|-
|''She's Beautiful When She's Angry''
|2014
|NR
|Nothing more than feminist propaganda being passed off as truth.
|$421,573<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beautifulwhenangry.htm</ref>
|-
|''Super Size Me''
|2004
|PG-13
|Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but food from McDonald's for a month to show the negative effects of doing so and tries using this experiment that no sane person would attempt to blame [[obesity]] on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
|$11,536,423
|-
|''The Tillman Story''
|2010
|R
|A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and [[Army Ranger]] [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister. Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The [[liberal bias]] was clear, make Tillman a liberal [[atheist]] anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary.
|$802,535
|-
|''Under the Gun''
|2016
|R
|Anti-second amendment, the film was criticized for its inaccuracies.
|
|-
|''The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception''
|1982
|NR
|Anti-American/Anti-Vietnam War propaganda that infamously accused General [[William Westmoreland]] of deliberately understating the force strength of the [[Vietcong]] during the Tet Offensive. This resulted in a libel suit made by Westmoreland against CBS that promptly went to court after an internal investigation was issued due to ''TV Guide'' finding damning evidence of similar journalistic malpractice that was practiced in the earlier documentary/propaganda ''The Selling of the Pentagon'', which ultimately resulted in CBS losing its libel insurance, as well as the documentary unit being scrapped when [[Larry Tisch]] took over in 1987.<ref name="Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning" />
|
|-
|''The Wall Within''
|June 2, 1988
|Unrated
|A documentary helmed by extremely liberal "journalist" [[Dan Rather]] that reinforced the false image of Vietnam War veterans being anti-social degenerates suffering from PTSD and drug abuse. Was also particularly infamous in that all six of the "veterans" that were interviewed were later confirmed by various documents to have never even served during the events they mentioned, and even the one who actually DID serve did not do so with boots on the ground and was a repairman.<ref>http://loonybird.com/media_dan_rather.htm</ref>
|N/A
|-
|''Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price''
|2005
|
|This anti-capitalist schlock vilifies [[Wal-Mart]] and other discount stores. Created by the far-left Communist studio Brave New Films.
|$1.5 million
|-
|''Winter Soldier''
|1972
|Not Rated
|The 1972 film about U.S. troops from [[Vietnam]] put on record as baby killers, [[human rights]] violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in Vietnam and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in [[Congress]] over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.
|Unknown
|-
|''Years of Living Dangerously''
|2014
|N/A
|Environmental schlockumentary spearheaded by ultra-liberal, [[James Cameron]], and featuring several proponents of [[Hollywood Values]] trying to preach the false idea of [[climate change]].
|
|}

==Anti-Christian and Sacrilegious films==

''See also:'' [[Atheist films]]

IMDb (Internet Movie Database) is an internet based database of information related to films, television programs, home videos, video games, and streaming content and these works rated in terms of their quality.

The IMDb list of [[Atheism|atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] themed movies indicates in terms of its ratings that there were many that were poorly done and there were many that were certainly not cinematic masterpieces.<ref>[https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076551036/ Atheism themed movies - IMDb]</ref>

[[Wikipedia]], an online encyclopedia founded by an atheist and [[Agnosticism|agnostic]], has not "Atheist films" or "List of atheist films" articles, but it does have a "List of [[Christianity|Christian]] films" article.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_films List of Christian films - Wikipedia]</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''2001: A Space Odyssey''
|1968
|G
|Stanley Kubrick's most notable film was controversial upon its release for its atheistic themes, particularly its support of the [[Theory of evolution]].
|$56,954,992
|-
|''After Earth''
|2013
|PG-13
|This box office failure contains a peculiar mix of both evolutionist and [[Scientology|Scientologist]] themes, and it further tarnished M. Night Shyamalan's directorial career.
|$60,522,097
|-
||Almost any film directed by Luis Buñuel
|
|
|Luis Buñuel was an atheist bigoted against Christians. He unjustly ridiculed Christians throughout his filmography and was a pioneer in making this schlock being considered "art" when it is really just offensive, vulgar and grotesque liberal smut.
|
|-
|''Antichrist''
|2009
|NR
|This gruesome film's title says it all: it's full of horrifying imagery juxtaposed to Christian symbols.
|$791,867
|-
|''Battlefield Earth''
|2000
|PG-13
|This Scientologist propaganda piece failed at the box-office and is largely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. It "won" in nine categories at the Golden Raspberry Awards (aka, the Razzie Awards), making it the most awarded film at the Razzies until ''Jack and Jill'' took its place. Furthermore, it won one-time awards for "Worst Drama of our first 25 Years" during the 2005 awards, as well as "Worst Picture of the Decade" in 2010. Lastly, the film plays into the liberal notion of personal characteristics mattering more than true merits: John Travolta is the star because of his affiliation with the "church" of Scientology.
|$21 million
|-
|''Book of Mormon''
|2011
|R
|Written by atheists Trey Parker and Matt Stone as what they sarcastically call "an atheist's love letter to religion", this musical insults every aspect of the Mormon religion as two of the church's elders embark on a mission to Africa. There are several Biblical inaccuracies, which reflects the writers' insane, misguided belief that Christians will believe anything word-for-word if it's written in the Bible. In one song, a group of tribal Ugandans swears against God in the Ugandan language.
|
|-
|''The Boondock Saints''
|1999
|R
|The characters are supposed to be Christians (or "saints" as the title suggests), but they show themselves as anything but. They dispense their own form of vigilante justice (summary execution) and say the F-word in every sentence they can. The FBI agent who chases them is hinted throughout the film to be [[homosexual]]. Overall, the film is just a vulgar ''[[Death Wish]]'' rip-off.
|
|-
|''Breaking the Waves''
|1996
|R
|It wrongly claims that God rewards and endorses adulterers and prostitution while vilifying devout Christians.
|$3,803,298
|-
|''The Canterbury Tales''
|1972 (Italy and West Germany) 1980 (USA)
|NC-17
|Directed by communist homosexual Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini, the film is an utter butchering of the seminal work by Geoffery Chaucer, even including movie-exclusive scenes proving that its viewpoint is inherently left-wing and anti-Christian. Among the most infamous additions include two priests engaging in sodomy (only one is punished via execution due to being poor and thus unable to bribe his way out) and Satan defecating out screaming friars.
|N/A
|-
|''Cloud Atlas''
|2012
|R
|Supports the idea of reincarnation and features anti-Christian undertones. Additionally, supports the idea of homosexuality and [[transvestitism]], as many of the characters are resurrected as the opposite sex, while still played by the same actor. This idea of supporting homosexuality is further brought to the forefront as one of the movie's directors recently came out as having had a sex change operation as a way to promote the movie.
|$27,108,272
|-
|''The Craft''
|1996
|R
|As the title implies, it depicts witchcraft in a positive light.
|$24,819,936
|-
|''The Crucible''
|1996
|PG-13
|Based upon the Broadway play by communist sympathizer Arthur Miller, this historical revisionist drama is an allegory intentionally written to compare the Christians of the Salem Witch Trials to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and comparing those accused of witchcraft to the communists HUAC hunted, ultimately spreading the idea that American communists of the Cold War era were helpless "victims" of HUAC. In real history, John Proctor, one of the accused, was reported as living a “Christian life in his family and was ever ready to help such as they stood in need”, but in the film, he confesses to being a witch and publicly denounces God.
|$7,343,114
|-
|''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Based on the book of the same name, this mystery film supports the false theory that [[Jesus]] Christ married [[Mary Magdalene]], pushing feminism and attacking Christianity along the way.
|$217,536,138
|-
|''Dead Poets Society''
|1989
|PG
|A worldly literature professor, John Keating (Robin Williams) is shown as inspiring and "open-minded". This contrasts with the conservative Christian boarding school where he teaches, apparently portrayed as conformist, oppressive, and materialistic. The film also appears to promote teen suicide, as one of the main characters is able to commit suicide without a negative word ever being uttered against his actions by any positive character.
|$95,860,116
|-
|''Dogma''
|1999
|R
|This attack on religion, particularly [[Catholic]]ism, contains cheap smutty jokes and incorrectly makes [[God]] female.
|$30,652,890
|-
|''Exodus: Gods and Kings''
|2014
|PG-13
|The prophet Moses is radically changed into an atheist and a terrorist. Glenn Beck said it essentially turns Moses into "an al-Qaeda member" who "doesn't want to rely on God anymore".
|$65,014,513
|-
|''Forty Days and Forty Nights''
|2002
|R
|In this vulgar sex comedy, the main character has to give up sex for Lent, and his ex-girlfriend tries tempting him to break his commitment throughout. Interestingly, it was released ''during'' the Lent season, so William Donnahue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, requested to both then-[[Disney]] CEO [[Michael Eisner]] and [[Harvey Weinstein]] that they reschedule the airing of the film, citing that "To show a film that parodies Lent in a most vulgar way is bad enough, but to show it during Lent is outrageous."<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/appeal-to-michael-eisner-and-harvey-weinstein-reschedule-40-days-and-40-nights/</ref> In addition, despite the inflammatory material in the movie, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] head Foxman did not call out the film.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083014/posts</ref>
|$37,950,822
|-
|''The Golden Compass''
|2007
|PG-13
|Based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.
|$70,107,728
|-
|''Hail Mary''
|1985
|NR
|Marxist filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard retells the story of Mary and Joseph in the modern day. As per his business casual, it was controversial upon its release. [[Pope John Paul II]] condemned it, claiming it was likely to offend the deeply religious because of its explicit nudity. Additionally, it depicts Joseph as a womanizing man [censored] and Mary in a similar light, as there is a montage where she is completely in the nude for no apparent reason. The film was banned in deeply religious countries such as [[Brazil]] and [[Argentina]].
|
|-
|''The Haunting of Molly Hartley''
|2008
|PG-13
|Christians are either starry-eyed kooks or homicidal maniacs, while those implied to be Satanists live a happy lifestyle.
|$15,418,749
|-
|''Hercules''
|2014
|PG-13
|This film seems to take a more atheistic turn on the Greek hero as opposed to the mythology behind Hercules.
|$72,688,614
|-
|''Inherit the Wind''
|1960
|Not Rated
|This historical revisionist drama contains a series of Hollywood-perpetuated lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] to smear Christianity, including: portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as ignorant, harsh, and punitive, based on an incorrect of his actions and testimony; falsely claiming that, at the end, Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid "caring" and "reasonable" [[Darwin]]ists; and wrongfully depicting Darwinists in a positive light and Christians as "deceitful". In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.
|
|-
|''The Invention of Lying''
|2009
|PG-13
|Written and directed by British atheist [[Ricky Gervais]], the movie takes place in an alternate reality where the concept of lying does not exist until Gervais' character invents it. As a consequence of lying not previously existing, religion hasn't existed either, so, behind the facade of a romantic comedy, the main message of the film is that all religion is based in lies.
|
|-
|''Kingdom of Heaven'' (theatrical version)
|2005
|R
|Atheist Ridley Scott directs this revisionist historical piece that portrays Muslims as the "victims" of the Crusades. In truth, the Muslims of the day won every Crusade except the first (in which Christians briefly prevailed), the third and the sixth.
|$47.4 million
|-
|''[[The Last Temptation of Christ]]''
|1988
|R
|The film's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where he comes down from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out his life as a full mortal man. He learns on his deathbed that he was deceived by [[Satan]] and begs God to let him "be [God's] son," at which point he finds himself once again on the cross. At other points in the film, Jesus is depicted as building crosses for the Romans, being tormented by the voice of God, and lamenting the many sins he believes he has committed.
Because of these departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' then-parent company MCA. One of the protestors dressed up as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross. Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it. The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film. One of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.
Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun and foundress of Eternal Word Television Network, described ''Last Temptation'' as "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world" and "a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally."
In some countries, including Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.
|$8,373,585
|-
|''Legion''
|2010
|R
|In this blasphemous film, God uses an army of angels to wipe out humanity, ignoring Psalm 91:11's promise that He sends angels to protect humanity.
|$40,168,080
|-
|''The Ledge''
|2011
|Not Rated
|Atheist screenplay writer Matthew Chapman confirmed that the main character is the first openly atheist hero in American cinema. Likewise, his work misleadingly depicts Christianity, via the character Jon, as being "bigoted", abusive, and domineering. Because of this, ''The Ledge'' failed at the box office flop and received generally negative reviews, with the liberal site [[TV Tropes]], similar to the issue with Thomas in the later liberal animated film adaptation ''Peter Rabbit'', even admitting under the articles "Unintentionally Sympathetic" and "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" that Jon was ultimately closer to being in the right than the main protagonist, Gavin.
|$610,986
|-
|''The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc''
|1999
|R
|The prominent historical figure Joan of Arc is psychologically and emotionally unstable, impulsive, and prone to mood swings, so she leads the French army to victory purely out of selfishness, cruelty, and vengeance. However, historical evidence proves the contrary. Evidently, this film was made to criticize Roman Catholicism.
|$66,976,317
|-
|''Monty Python's Life of Brian''
|1979
|R
|A man is born on the same day as Christ Jesus and is mistaken for the Messiah. Expect an hour and a half of rampant sacrilege to follow suit.
|$19,398,164
|-
|''[[Monty Python's The Meaning of Life]]''
|1983
|R
|It's ninety minutes of absurdist, godless existentialism with a sacrilegious person's view of [[Heaven]] at the end by the staunchly nonreligious British troupe Monty Python. Need we say more?
|$14,929,552
|-
|''The Most Hated Woman in America''
|2017
|R
|This biographical drama sympathizes with [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], who is responsible for ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963 ([[Atheism and Mass Murder|and disastrous results that liberals refuse to talk about]]), and not surprisingly turns her into a martyr (even though she and her family were robbed and murdered by people working for her own atheist organization).
|
|-
|''Missionary''
|2013
|R
|Copying the deranged lover plot device from other films (ex. Fatal Attraction), this film makes the maniac a Mormon.
|
|-
|''Noah''
|2014
|PG-13
|In a liberal take on the classic story from the [[Book of Genesis]], liberals, going along with their usual ''modus operandi'', shoehorn in harmful messages that had nothing to do with the original story, such as [[environmentalism]], living on a vegan diet, and most notably, insisting that the [[Theory of Evolution]] is "fact". In addition, many traits of the "antagonists" appeared to be more Biblical than those of the "protagonists".<ref>Patterson, Roger & Chaffey, Tim (March 29, 2014). [https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noah-movie-detailed-review/ The ''Noah'' Movie: Our Detailed Review]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 9, 2016.</ref>
|$101,200,044
|-
|''Oh! Heavenly Dog''
|1980
|PG
|Don't let the title fool you. The movie is anything but heavenly, as it smears Christianity and presents a false depiction of reincarnation.
|N/A
|-
|''Practical Magic''
|1998
|PG-13
|Yet another film glorifying witchcraft and attempting to mix romantic comedy into it (which even puzzled liberal critics).<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/practical_magic/</ref> This was one of the many wiccan movies released during the late 90's.
|$46,683,377
|-
|''Priest''
|1994
|R
|Blatantly anti-Catholic and pro-homosexual.
|$4,165,845
|-
|''Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves''
|1991
|PG-13
|In this storm of political correctness for the sake of political correctness, the Christianity of Robin Hood and his Merry Men is heavily downplayed, save for Friar Tuck's initial bigotry toward the Muslim character Azeem. Azeem, who is not present in the original Robin Hood legends but was created for this version of the Robin Hood saga, is depicted as a wise, open-minded, tolerant mystic. Robin Hood and Azeem are portrayed by liberals Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman, respectively.
|$390.5 million
|-
|''September Dawn''
|2007
|R
|This anti-Mormon propaganda piece blatantly distorts history. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was perpetrated by a group of Mormons, but, despite what this movie says, Church authority did not authorize such an act, and they still condemn it to this day. This movie was strategically released in order to muddy the waters of Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. Fortunately, the filmmakers did not get away with their heinous crimes, as ''September Dawn'' received extremely negative reviews from film critics, very weak box office receipts, and a Golden Raspberry Award nomination.
|$1,066,555
|-
|''Silent Hill''
|2006
|R
|Based on the horror-themed video game series with the same name (go figure), the Christians are the cult-like antagonists.
|$46,982,632
|-
|''Silent Night, Deadly Night''
|1984
|R
|A man becomes a serial killer after abuse from the Christian orphanage wherein he grew up. Conservative Christians successfully protested being vilified, and the film was pulled from theaters within one week of its release.
|$2,491,460
|-
|''Spotlight''
|2015
|R
|Another film bashing Christianity. The "heroes" uncover a scandal of child molestation in the Catholic Church. The film portrays them as "brave" (because Hollywood hasn't bashed Christianity enough) but ignores the fact that homosexual infiltrators within the Church, seeking to discredit and damage the Church, were responsible for the atrocities and their subsequent coverup. Strangely, the same unspeakable acts have been happening legally in Islamic nations but they are conveniently ignored by the liberal media (if the journalists uncovered that, then that would be an example of bravery). It also downplays the effect homosexuality had by having several characters specifically deny that homosexuality was a factor in their victimization and subsequent turns to homosexuality.
|$45,055,776
|-
|''Star Trek V: The Final Frontier''
|1989
|PG
|Secular humanists are kind, but the religiously devout as violent and ruthless. Even liberally biased critics didn't like it, as it won three Golden Raspberry Awards (Razzie Awards), including Worst Picture of 1989, and was nominated for three more Razzies.
|$63 million
|-
|''Sunshine''
|2007
|R
|This vehemently nonreligious, apocalyptic film is full of scientific inaccuracy. Christianity is embodied in a homicidal psychopath, who believes that it is the will of God for the world to end. This Christian is willing to kill anyone who gets in the way of what he believes is the will of God. The personified atheism, in contrast, is "sympathetic", "kind", and "pro-humanity".
|$32 million
|-
|''The Truman Show''
|1998
|PG
|An atheism and humanism propaganda piece about liberal president Harry Truman. Truman doesn't realize his seemingly ordinary life is a reality TV show, overseen by Christof, the show's heartless and manipulative creator. Christof lives in the fake sky above Truman, watching over him, controlling everything from the weather to Truman's destiny. He is an allegorical substitute for the Christian God. (Notice "Christ" in his name.) Truman must escape from the false world of the show (Christianity) and triumph over Christof. As Truman appears to walk on water in the ending, the film is displaying the false, human-worshipping sentiment that man can replace God and be Lord of his own life.
|$31,542,121
|-
|''Victor Frankenstein''
|2015
|PG-13
|The protagonist of the classic conservative novel warning against the consequences of playing God is now one of the most openly atheist protagonists in cinema.
|$34.2 million
|-
|}

==Debatable Whether Liberal==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''21 Jump Street''
|2011
|R
|Two police officers try to take down a drug ring in high school where the villains are environmentalists and drug dealers. But contains many sexual references, full profanity, and many religious insults. A parodic comedy remake of the 1987–91 [[Fox Network]] police drama of the same name.
|$201,585,328
|-
|''The 40-Year-Old Virgin''
|2005
|R
|A bawdy sex comedy about a man who is ridiculed by his peers for his indifference to sex as an adult. His friends, feeling that he isn't "normal", try to encourage him to lose his virginity, starting with pornography, sex toys, and even prostitution. However, their personal attitudes towards women ruin their own relationships, and the man remains steadfast in his abstinence. Later, he meets a woman who connects with him, but is no longer a virgin, as she has a teenage daughter. At one point, her daughter confesses only to him that she is also a virgin and encourages him not to feel bad about it. However, her mother, who has been on multiple dates with him, is still unaware of his virginity. After their proposed deadline by which the two agreed to eventually have sex, he tells her of his virginity and stays reluctant about giving in. There is some drama and confusion between them, but she eventually comes to accept him and the two are happily married at the end before having sex.
|$177.4 million
|-
|''Accepted''
|2006
|PG-13
|It criticizes the [[Department of Education]] (or colleges and universities in general) and our protagonist lives the America dream by starting his own college, but then the juvenile humor, gross-out humor and drug abuse steps in.
|$36,323,505
|-
|''Aeon Flux''
|2005
|PG-13
|Anti-cloning film, but also pro-feminism as well.
|$25,874,337
|-
|''Antz''
|1998
|PG
|It's produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], downplays the military, and possesses an implicit promotion of Communism via the main character, but also has an Anti-Eugenics message too.
|$90,757,863
|-
|''Army of Darkness''
|1993
|R
|Despite its unrealistic depictions of demons, it's a pretty gun-centric pro-Second Amendment film.
|$11,502,976
|-
|''Atlantis: The Lost Empire''
|2001
|PG
|Released during the [[Michael Eisner]] era of [[Disney]]. On the one hand, the main villain is a military commander who would endanger the lost city of Atlantis just to be rich, and it is implied that he would commit treason by selling the power source to the Kaiser during World War I for the same motivation. The theft of the crystal to become rich could be seen as a condemnation of capitalism. That being said, however, capitalism has also been promoted in a more positive light in the form of Preston B. Whitmore, an eccentric but ultimately good-hearted billionaire who funded the expedition in the first place, and in addition, most of the principal cast was shown to have dreams of getting a better lot in society, with it being heavily implied in the ending that they ultimately succeeded in achieving those dreams after selflessly trying to save Atlantis, which acts as an implicit promotion of both capitalism and the American Dream.
|$84,056,472
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast''
|1991
|G
|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. On a related note, a scene that had Belle baking a cake for her father when he got home ended up cut at the order of Linda Woolverton, with her reason specifically being because "a liberated woman [like Belle] wouldn't know how to bake," essentially implying that baking would have been the activity of non-liberated women, a typical statement by feminists.<ref name="Woolverton and Belle">https://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle</ref><ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/belle-beauty-beast-became-disneys-155053182.html</ref> In addition, the opening song and the reprise has Belle having a similar "smarter-than-thou" personality that is all too common among liberals, having her refer to the villagers derogatorily as "little people" in the beginning of the opening song, repeatedly stressing the "provincial" elements of the village when expressing her desire to leave the village, complaining about Gaston due to considering him "boorish and brainless" shortly after his failed proposal, and also dismissing the villagers as "they" when mentioning her goals ("I want so much more than what ''they've'' got planned"). On that note, due to Beast being unwilling to even defend himself, let alone the castle servants, when the mob arrived to kill him until Belle had arrived at the last second, which had been the result of Belle's attempts at civilizing Beast, it gives the implication that the ideal male in the film is not allowed to get angry or act violently even in self-defense unless a woman was physically present. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> which had partly been done in response to negative criticisms towards Ariel in the Conservative film ''The Little Mermaid'' (which had been the immediate preceding film) by liberal critics,<ref name="Woolverton and Belle" /> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref><ref>https://www.bustle.com/articles/163686-the-one-thing-beauty-and-the-beast-fans-probably-dont-know-about-the-creation-of-belle</ref><ref>http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle</ref><ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-19/entertainment/ca-544_1_disney-film</ref> On that note, this made it the first ''Disney'' animated adaptation of a fairy tale to radically alter the story specifically to promote a left-wing socio-political agenda onto the audience regardless of whether such was actually appropriate for the audience or an actual good message (as prior Disney films generally made alterations specifically to tone down anything that was otherwise inappropriate for the age group for the audience).

Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it (i.e., ''The Hunchback of Notre Dame'' and ''The Princess and the Frog''), the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light.

Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. According to Don Hahn, there were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including choice lyrics of the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being homosexual and dying from AIDS at the time the film was made and wanting to push the idea of being "ostracized" for his suffering from AIDS.<ref>https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-lefou-howard-ashman</ref><ref>https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/16583/don-Hahn-interview-beauty-and-the-beast-howard-Ashman-the-lion-king-south-park-and-frankenweenie</ref> One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer (with the implication being further increased in the Special Edition-exclusive song "Human Again" where Lumiere mentioned he had a "mademoiselle in each arm", would be "courting again, chic and sporting again", and Mrs. Potts interjecting "Which should cause several husbands alarm." with Lumiere laughing at this, heavily implying that Lumiere was an adulterer to married women). In addition, Maurice is depicted as slightly addled and eccentric, as well as being naïve (such as thinking Gaston was a good match for Belle despite the story making clear he wasn't), and while he does try to go out of his way to save Belle in the midway point of the film, he ultimately needs saving twice and is unable to save Belle at all, which makes it debatable as to just how pro-family the narrative actually was. In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />
|$$218,967,620
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast'' (2017 remake)
|2017
|PG
|On the one hand, the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning easy revenue and capitalizing on current film trends in the modern, soulless Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity and promote some liberal values within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion in the cast of characters is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it all in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston (although it should be noted that in the actual script, it was never actually specified that LeFou was homosexual.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/03/josh-gad-lefou-beauty-and-the-beast/98679284/</ref>). At the end of the film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle.

Not only is it an atrocious and needless artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009) (most infamously, the villagers are shown to be explicitly intolerant of Belle learning how to read and teaching girls to do the same, smashing her washing machine in the process, despite the fact that the namesake for the village in this film, Mdm. Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the original author for the fairy tale, was herself a woman). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was. There were also hints at an anti-war message due to Gaston being turned into a war veteran.

On the other hand, there were also several surprisingly Conservative messages in the film, significantly more than in the 1991 version. Namely, Christianity is treated in a far more positive light in this film than in the 1991 version as one of the few friends Belle has in this version is the village Chaplain named Pere Robert who is shown to be sympathetic to her bibliophilic nature and also attempts to prevent Maurice from being sent to the Asylum, and later is shown to be horrified at the formation of the mob against the Beast (it is to be noted that in the original 1991 film, the character in question was merely a bookseller, not a priest, and most of the villagers, implied to be devout Christians, were demonized in the film), which was also surprisingly accurate to history despite the aforementioned changing of history in the film (in real history, Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, actively encouraged literacy, writing, and arithmetic among both genders, with girls being taught in convents or at the home.). In addition, Maurice actually is shown to be more proactive in this film, such as directly refusing Gaston's attempt at marrying Belle and even attempting to expose Gaston as an attempted murderer and psychopath, and also plays a direct role in saving Belle and himself from the paddywagon after she exposes Beast to the villagers (in the original film, although he does set out to try and find Belle and save her after trying to get the villagers to help failed, he ultimately required saving by her due to catching an illness during his trek, and ultimately needed saving alongside Belle via Chip).

In addition, Lumiere as well as the featherduster (named Plumette in this version) are shown to be an actual loving couple (in the original film, it is heavily implied that Lumiere was a frequent womanizer and that the featherduster was also sexually loose), and the remake also doesn't demonize traditional marriage nearly as much as in the 1991 version (notably, the remake cut out Gaston's wedding proposal as well as Belle shoving Gaston into mud in front of attendees). The forgiveness and redemption theme was also significantly more emphasized in the remake, due to Beast ultimately forgiving Maurice after learning why he had tried to steal the rose and even allowing Belle to save Maurice specifically to make up for his past behavior, with Maurice also forgiving Beast upon Belle showing him the baby rattle (originally, Maurice was a bit more hesitant to forgive the Beast). It is also shown to be significantly more pro-family as well, as not only is Belle shown to be loyal to her father like in the 1991 original, but as noted above, Maurice himself took measures to protect Belle and notably agreed with Belle that Gaston would not have worked out for her (originally, Maurice also thought Gaston was alright for her), and he also was shown to be very protective of Belle after his wife had died from the plague, with Belle's mom specifically sacrificing herself by telling them to leave her behind to allow Belle a healthy life.

In addition, the triplets (renamed to "Village Lasses") in the remake were depicted as having haughtiness, arrogance, being jealous of Belle, as well as overall being nasty people, including briefly smirking at Belle when she was locked up in the paddywagon as well as being actively involved in the arrest of Maurice as well as the later attack on Beast's castle (in the original film, the triplets were not shown to have any negative behavior to them besides their crushing on Gaston [not participating in the later arrest of Maurice, let alone the attack on Beast's castle shortly afterward during the climax, and also implying at one point that they were willing to give their blessing to Gaston marrying Belle when Belle refused him in the beginning of the film, and while they were present during the final lyrics for the Gaston reprise where Gaston explicitly divulged key details for his blackmail plan, the way it was framed could easily be interpreted as the triplets genuinely not knowing about the plan due to their absence from Maurice's arrival up to the scene where Gaston whispers the plan to LeFou.], and it is also heavily implied that they supported traditional marriage and were demeaned in the film by being referred to in the script as The Bimbettes and treated as dumb blondes for this reason). In addition, according to the film's director Bill Condon as well as one of the triplets' actresses, Rafaelle Cohen, the reason the triplets were intensely jealous and spiteful of Belle was because their mother neglected them while doting on Belle, showcasing the dangers of parental neglect.
|
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas''
|1998
|G
|Paints Christmas in a positive light, and has Beast learning the meaning behind it, as well as putting aside the past relating to it being the reason he was cursed. Also significantly tones down the more feminist messaging from the original film. The manner in which Christmas was depicted, however, was closer to the secular view of Christmas than the actual intended meaning of the holiday being a celebration of the birth of [[Jesus Christ]].
|N/A (Direct to video movie)
|-
|''The Bee Movie''
|2007
|PG
|Its debatable whether or not its environmentalist or against it. It does show the destructiveness of environmentalism (i.e. butting into nature's problems in the name of helping her). The anti-human human sentiments in the movie turned out to be wrong, however, the humans are taking the honey made by the bees, similar to the welfare program of taking from those who worked for it. Others believe the movie promotes [[bestiality]], and is just disguised as a family movie.
|$287,600,000
|-
|''Bohemian Rhapsody''
|2018
|PG-13
|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemned the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (ie, promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.
|
|-
|''The Campaign''
|2012
|R
|Political comedy depicts the Democrat candidate (Will Ferrell) as an obnoxious, drunken womanizer and satire of [[John Edwards]], although the Republican candidate (Zach Galifianakis) is portrayed just as negatively as a corrupt capitalist.
|$33,165,738
|-
|''Chicken Run''
|2000
|G
|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The main villain of the movie is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes elements of feminism and anti-Americanism. On other hand the main villain of the movie is also a feminist as well as she called her husband's ancestors "poor worthless nothings"
|$106,834,564
|-
|''The Crow''
|1994
|R
|The tagline claims that our hero is an angel, but he doesn't display any Christian values. However, there is an anti-drug scene were Eric Draven (the hero) makes a drug addict mother realize that her daughter needs her & gets her off drugs. On top of that the film's villains are nihilist anarchists. The film is notable for being Brandon Lee's last film, as an accident on the set killed him during production.
|$50,693,129
|-
|''Ed Wood''
|1994
|R
|Although it does glorify cross dressing and the [[homosexual agenda]]. It still is pro-capitalism and the film also glorifies the American dream. As despite the obstacles Wood faces, he still continues doing what he loves in making movies.
|$5,887,457
|-
|''Edward Scissorhands''
|1990
|PG-13
|Endorsed by the Christian website ChristianAnswers.net with a 4 out of 5 star rating. Conversely however, a prominently featured Christian character - the only character in the movie ever identified as Christian - is portrayed as fanatical and bigoted against people with scissors for hands.
|$56,362,352
|-
|''Falling Down''
|1993
|R
|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrate a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.
|$40,903,593
|-
|''[[Fargo]]''
|1996
|R
|A pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping, and murder scheme. It remains debatable whether she is a feminist or feminine protagonist.
|$24,611,975
|-
|''Furry Vengeance''
|2010
|PG
|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[Capitalist|capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists for doing their job. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories" and he even puts up a poster saying that anyone who violates the forest preservation will be fined at $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).
|$35,000,000
|-
|''Ghost''
|1990
|PG-13
|The [[Bible]] claims ghosts don't exist. Still this film toys with idea that they do, also it has liberal actress Whoopi Goldberg as a psychic medium. Nevertheless, the film does show Christian values, as ghost Sam Wheat tries to uncover a bank fraud case, when he does convinces Goldberg to give the money to a Christian charity. It also has an anti-infidelity message, as despite being widowed, Sam's wife Molly still refuses to be with anyone else, even when his false friend Carl tries to hit on her. Also it isn't PC on [[Eternal damnation|damnation]], as the villains are seen being cared away helplessly by evil spirits after they die.
|$217,631,306
|-
|''Good Kill''
|2014
|R
|Ethan Hawke plays a man who questions the ethics of his job as a drone pilot, while it is taking a jab at the [[Barack Obama]] regime (Obama has droned more people in the Middle East than George W. Bush, most of whom were innocent bystanders and the left has ignored it or claimed it was a "Fox News conspiracy"). It could also be against the War on Terror too.
|$316,472
|-
|''Grave of the Fireflies''
|1988
|UR
|While the film has been labeled anti-war, the director Isao Takahata stated the actual meaning was about growing up. The film's message is still debatable to this day.
|
|-
|''Halloween III: Season of the Witch''
|1982
|R
|Unlike the two films before it (which has mass murder Michael Myers) this film's villain is a pagan who plans on sacrificing children via witchcraft to bring back the original celebration of Halloween. However he does this by selling masks to them which many critics pointed out may have been an anti-capitalism message.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/22/movies/haloween-iii-plotting-a-joke.html</ref> The film's "hero" is also an adulterer.
|$14,400,000
|-
|''Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters''
|2013
|R
|Western fairy tale characters Hansel and Gretel are now adults and have their own private bounty hunting organization in hunting witches. Portrays witchcraft in a negative manner, and guns in good light. But the gore, graphic violence and brief nudity is rather unnecessary.
|$55,703,475
|-
|''Harry and the Hendersons''
|1987
|PG
|Should be PG-13 for multiple uses of the dreaded S-word in profanity.
|$49 million
|-
|''High Noon''
|1952
|UR
|A favorite of both Presidents [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and [[Bill Clinton]]; [[John Wayne]] said it was "the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life";<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
|$3,750,000
|-
|''Hoot''
|2006
|PG
|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite a businessman being the main villain its not really anti-capitalist, as it does not portray the compnay in negative light. As the protagonists clearly have nothing angainst the business itself, even the main character states "A panacake House would be great." Also shows a police officer in postiive light. Oberall the movie contains many morals, and promoting friendshi and it does give kids the great inspiration to stand up for what they believe is right.
|$8,117,637
|-
|''Horrible Bosses 2''
|2014
|R
|Sequel to Horrible Bosses. Though this film could be argued to actually support the American Dream and capitalism, which its processor clearly did not.
|$54,445,357
|-
|''[[The Hunger Games]]''
|2012
|PG-13
|Futuristic totalitarians plan titular annual televised "games" as punishment on the descendants of failed revolutionaries from a past uprising. Although technically a message against totalitarianism and for individualism, Leftist actor Donald Sutherland, who played President Snow, implied that the struggles of the films' protagonists were supposed to be derived from the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the book's author also indicated that the events of the book were based on the George W. Bush administration.
|$406,267,858
|-
|''Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull''
|2008
|PG-13
|Although the film does depict the Communists as bad guys (to such an extent that the Russian Communist Party in Moscow was angered by the decision), and implies that Indiana Jones is a Republican or at the very least an [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] fan, the film also depicts McCarthyism in a negative light, with one character implying that the American Government was simply being paranoid and denies there being a sizeable Communist infiltration in America, and also seems to promote paganism in the form of the Crystal Skull.
|$786.6 million
|-
|''The Iron Giant''
|1999
|PG
|This animation espouses anti-war themes and also brief but strong anti-hunting sentiments. Firearms in general are shown in a negative light, with the phrase "guns kill" being repeated a total of three times. The titular giant is referred to as a "big gun that walks." From a conservative viewpoint, he is a poor metaphor for a real gun; unlike a law-abiding citizen who is a gun owner, the giant has no choice in his actions because he is a war machine programmed with the inability to use his weapons for good, but only to use them thoughtlessly and senselessly. The story involves him learning to hide his weapons and "not be a gun". The conclusion is that, in order to protect the public from an incoming missile, he must fly into it and kill himself rather than use his guns against it. As it is explained, "It's bad to kill, but it isn't bad to die." In addition, despite being set during the Cold War, it largely downplays the Soviet menace that was occurring during that time, as the main antagonist, Kent Mansley, is a government agent (implied to be part of the NSA) investigating the titular Iron Giant who at one point while launching a tirade against Hogarth Hughes alludes to the possibility that the Communists may have been responsible for the Giant's creation as a means to destroy America and that they must destroy it before "it destroys us" and is treated negatively for it. Also features some foul language.

That all being said, however, despite the definite anti-gun and anti-hunting themes, the film does portray the military in a fairly positive light, as General Rogarth was shown to be even-headed and only willing to use military force if confronted with evidence requiring for it, also making clear that he was not happy about bringing out an implied large military force for what was apparently a hoax, and while the military does try to attack the Iron Giant late into the film, it was only because they had been manipulated into doing so by Kent Mansley by the latter lying about the giant killing Hogarth Hughes, and only when confronted with evidence that Hogarth had in fact been alive did the military stand down. In addition, when Hogarth left to investigate the evidence of a "martian" taking out an antenna, he proceeded to salute a photograph of his father, who was implied to have died during World War II. Also has a positive portrayal of the American icon Superman in it. There's also an anti-materialist message in it as well as an implicitly Christian message, as Hogarth talks to the Giant about how humans and other forms of life possess souls that live on even after their mortal bodies die.
|$5,732,614
|-
|''The Iron Lady''
|2011
|PG-13
|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain, helping to lift the country out of its recession. However, it also showed Margaret Thatcher in a somewhat negative light, depicting her during her late years as becoming slightly addled.
|$80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)
|-
|''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
|1946
|UR
|It promotes the concept of self-worth and individualism ultimately, and that choices do in fact matter and have consequences, and ultimately promotes faith to a certain extent. However, it also falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
|$3,300,000
|-
|''Jaws''
|1975
|PG
|Anti-environmentalism film, the heroes are police chief Brody, WWII vet Quint and Marine Biologist Hooper who team up to take on a monstrous, man-eating great white shark. However, there is a part where (despite the warning) the Mayor keeps the beaches open for the sake of money, which some may say is an anti-capitalism statement. Notable for being one of the first summer blockbusters. It was followed by three sequels in 1978, 1983 and 1987.
|$260,000,000<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm</ref>
|-
|''Juno''
|2007
|PG-13
|A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.
|$143,492,840
|-
|''Jurassic World''
|2015
|PG-13
|Jurassic Park is now functioning and open for business and the new boss is a woman, an obvious feminist message. Also the military is downgraded as they plan to weaponize dinosaurs. Despite all this feminists weren't impressed and labeled it sexist<ref>https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/jurassic-world-a-big-dumb-sexist-mess.html</ref> and even liberal critics called the weaponizing dinosaurs plot asinine.<ref>http://thoughtcatalog.com/olos-nah/2015/06/ill-just-say-what-everyone-is-thinking-jurassic-world-is-terrible/</ref>
|$652,270,625
|-
|''Kiki's Delivery Service''
|1989
|G
|The film does show the value of hard work and is pro-capitalism (Kiki owns her own delivery business), but at the same time depicts feminism and witchcraft in a positive light.
|$18 million
|-
|''Kingdom of Heaven'' (director's cut)
|2005
|R
|A story set in the Crusades period about a young knight. While the theatrical version was a pure liberal media, the director's cut promotes fighting, honor, duty, and portrays the noble Knights Hospitallers in a positive light. That being said, the movie still portrays Knights Templars in a negative light.
|$47,398,413
|-
|''Kingsman: The Secret Service''
|2015
|R
|Anti-environmentalist, the villain attempts to eradicate the human race because of his belief in man-made global warming. Though the film is full of language and violence as well as a brief nudity scene. There's also one scene were one of the characters gets into a bloody fight with a group of Christians whom are portrayed as "racists".
|$128,261,724
|-
|''Knocked Up''
|2007
|R
|Unemployed, immature and childish 23-year old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) has a one-night stand with serious career woman Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl), with the unintended consequence of pregnancy. Alison's mother (Joanna Kerns) says she should get the pregnancy "[[abortion|taken care of]]", while Ben's best friend Jonah (Jonah Hill) suggests that "I won't say the A-word, but it rhymes with abortion." Alison decides to keep the child, while Ben decides to find a real job, grow up, and become a father.
|$148,768,917
|-
|''The LEGO Movie''
|2014
|PG
|Anti-Large Government, with a message that anyone has the potential to be extraordinary. However is also anti-capitalist, and the main villain is Lord Business.
|$257,760,692
|-
|''Lincoln''
|2012
|PG-13
|Bio film on conservative icon [[Abraham Lincoln]], played wonderfully by Daniel Day-Lewis. Although overall very positive towards Lincoln and the Republican Party, it nonetheless downplays the role the Democrat Party played in the institution of slavery during the Civil War.
|$182,207,973
|-
|''Lionheart''
|1990
|R
|Pro-family as Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Lyon Gaultier (nicknamed Lionheart) who becomes a street fighter to help pay his sister-in-law's expenses after her husband is killed. During this time he also tries to reconnect with his estranged family. However he gets into the country illegally, which some could point out is a pro-illegal immigration statement.
|$24,078,196
|-
|''The Lorax''
|2012
|PG
|Although it has an environmentalist agenda, it also states that monopolies are wrong.
|$214,030,500
|-
|''Mulan''
|1998
|G
|The film has Liberals changing history to suit their feminist agenda similar to what they did in Pocahontas as well as some historical revisionism (In the film the Huns are at war with China, even though this never happened, although that said, the name of the villain, Shan Yu, hints at them being Xiongyu). However, the central theme of [[Filial piety]] from work it was based on, [[The Ballad of Mulan]], is still present ultimately, as the main reason Mulan joined the military was because her father suffered a severe injury that made him unfit for combat, and the film is pro-Military.
|$120,620,254
|-
|''P.C.U.''
|1994
|PG-13
|College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
|$4,350,774
|-
|''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
|2004
|R
|Downplays the [[Resurrection]]<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
|$370,782,930
|-
|''Pillow Talk''
|1959
|UR
|A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
|$18,750,000
|-
|''The Princess and the Frog''
|2009
|G
|Liberals praised this film for featuring Disney's first African American princess but ignored the fact that it insults Christianity with Louisiana Voodoo, even replacing the traditional role of the fairy godmother with a blind voodoo priestess. On top of that, ''The Princess and the Frog'' is said to have stolen much of its plot from great conservative film ''The Little Mermaid'' <ref>http://crowdofstars.livejournal.com/14186.html</ref> That being said, however, it does depict traditional femininity in a positive light in the form of the side character Charlotte LeBoeuf, and is the first Disney animated feature film to have a positive depiction of traditional marriage since ''The Little Mermaid'' two decades prior. It's also debatable as to whether it promotes feminism, as aside from Charlotte LeBoeuf being depicted in a positive light overall as noted above, it implies at one point that Tiana achieving her dreams of being a CEO is ultimately a negative due to the main villain Dr. Facilier using that to tempt her into aiding him.
|$104,400,899
|-
|''Pulp Fiction''
|1994
|R
|Despite saying the F-word in almost every sentence, the film (surprisingly) has a pro-Christian message as after being shot at, every bullet misses mob hit men Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega. Winnfield believes it was a divine intervention and message from God to stop his life of crime. His partner doesn't believe this but it's later proven to be true as he perished later on in the movie. Also has sadomasochistic homosexuals as the bad guys. And (sort of) has an anti-drug message as mob boss's girlfriend Mia Wallace is seen also overdosing (a negative side to drugs) on heroin.
|$107,928,762
|-
|''The Rescuers''
|1977
|G
|The villain in this movie is a capitalist pawn shop owner, who wants a rare diamond to make her rich, to add insult to injury they're Southerners. Also paints the United Nations in a positive light. On the other hand, the main villain is also a feminist, and the main human protagonist is shown praying for not only herself (even she has been kidnapped) but for all the kids in the orphanage (who have not been kidnapped). This is one of the rare Disney films feature a [[Christian]] character that's treated in a positive light.
|$29 million

|-
|''Robin Hood''
|1973
|G
|Animated Disney adaptation of the iconic story, depicting all of the characters as anthropomorphic animals. Although the story itself was based on [[Joseph Ritson]]'s revised version of the character that was in support of the Jacobin cause and thus was a liberal icon (steals from the rich, gives to the poor), the villain is Prince John who makes his money from taxes, suggesting Robin Hood is only giving money the government demanded back to people who actually worked for it. It also features a condemnation of government encroachment of the church, as a pivotal scene featured the Sheriff of Nottingham explicitly stealing a coin from the poor box and his later arresting Friar Tuck for trying to stop him, and the Sheriff's actions were clearly being framed in a horrible light.
|$32 million
|-
|''[[Rogue One: A Star Wars Story]]''
|2016
|PG-13
|A group of freedom fighters undertake a dangerous mission in an attempt to steal the plans for the Galactic Empire's ultimate weapon, the Death Star. Unlike the previous Star Wars films, the focus of this one is on soldiers on the battlefield, their goal to restore liberty to the Galaxy. This gives the movie a strong feeling of American patriotism, and could also be argued to show respect to the U.S. military. However, the screenwriters Chris Weitz and Gary Whitta made tweets that implied that they were trying to push the leftist Diversity agenda just after Trump won the presidency, as well as used a customized version of the Rebel Starbird logo with a safety pin attached, and one of the main characters, Saw Gerrera, was stated to be based on Marxist revolutionary [[Che Guevara]] and was treated in a (comparably) positive light.
|$1,043,133,586
|-
|''Saw''
|2004-2010, 2017
|R (Director's Cuts are NC-17)
|The franchise contains an anti-nihilist message, with the antagonist, John Kramer, also known as "the Jigsaw Killer," wishing for his victims to survive the "games" in which he places them, ultimately emerging with a better appreciation for their lives. For example, ''Saw'' condemns the adultery committed by Dr. Lawrence Gordon. ''Saw III'' focuses on the value of forgiveness, John having Jeff Denlon complete three tests involving the three people whom he blamed for the death of his young son. ''Saw IV'' contains a very strong message of letting go and letting people find salvation and redemption for themselves, an allusion to biblical passages about the subject. However, it could also be argued that Jigsaw is playing God with the value of human life, by bringing his test subjects to the very edge of death, forcing them to gravely hurt themselves, in order to survive. Furthermore, in ''Saw III'', one of his apprentices, Amanda Young, is revealed to have rigged traps to kill her victims, even if they successfully complete their games, as she no longer believes in Jigsaw's philosophy. However, John is shown clearly shown to be disgusted by Amanda's actions, though nevertheless trying to guide her to redemption, or at least his version of it. Other condemnations of nihilism include the clearly sociopathic depiction of corrupt Detective Mark Hoffman, the most important of Jigsaw's apprentices, as he, like Amanda, strays from John's philosophy and simply rigs traps to murder his victims, while also carrying out the games that John had planned before his death at the end of ''Saw III.''
|$953,421,276
|-
|''Shame''
|2011
|NC-17
|While the movie shows [[Hollywood Values]], such as sex addiction, in a negative light and is clearly anti-[[homosexual agenda]], as the main character reaches his lowest point by partaking in such acts, the film is graphic in its nature leaving one to question how conservative it really is.
|$3,909,002
|-
|''[[The Simpsons]] Movie''
|2007
|PG-13
|This feature based upon the long-running animated sitcom portrays the liberal [[Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] as a villainous and devious agency and the government in general as intrusive and corrupt. On the other hand, it celebrates [[environmentalism]] in the beginning.
|$183,135,014
|-
|''Soul Man''
|1986
|PG-13
|A white student cheats the [[affirmative action]] system, by pretending to be black in order to get the scholarship he needs for to pay for Harvard. Towards the end, it is revealed he took the scholarship away from someone who needed it as well (and is really black) because she has a son and is divorced at such a young age. The movie portyals the police as racist, and blames racism on many things, and seems to support the need for affirmative action. But on a conservative note, the film teaches the importance of hard work, and is also politically incorrect.
|$27,820,000
|-
|''[[Star Wars]]''
|1977-1983 (Original Trilogy); 1999-2005 (Prequel Trilogy); 2015-2019 (Sequel Trilogy)
|PG, PG-13 (Episode III & Episodes VII-IX)
|The well-known space opera series is mostly composed of simple truths about the triumph of good over evil, and in the case of ''Episode VI: Return of the Jedi'', redemption. However, ''Episode VI'' also contained some implied pro-[[Vietcong]] propaganda at George Lucas' behest via the Ewoks, as well as his later claiming that the entirety of the ''Star Wars'' saga from ''Episodes IV''-''VI'' was meant to be his means of protesting Vietnam (which is supported by a memo dating back to 1973 where he claimed the film was about "A large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters." It is also to be noted that this was not the first time he voiced support for the Vietcong as well as used film to push an anti-American/anti-War agenda, as he also initially played a role in the filming of ''Apocalypse Now''<ref>http://nypost.com/2014/09/21/how-star-wars-was-secretly-george-lucas-protest-of-vietnam/</ref>), and the re-release for ''Episode IV: A New Hope'' also had an infamous edit where it made it seem as though Greedo shot at Han first, with George Lucas later revealing he did the edit (or rather, falsely claimed it was always that way) as a means to promote gun control. Regarding the pro-Vietcong sentiment being pushed in ''Return of the Jedi'', former president [[Richard Nixon]] in his 1985 book ''No More Vietnams'' cited ''Return of the Jedi'' as ultimately one reason why America, at least by that time, had initially felt so guilty of their strength that they were unwilling to use it even to defend their freedom and that of others.<ref>''No More Vietnams'' by Richard Nixon, 1985 Chapter 1: The assertion that our very bigness is badness has infested our culture to a surprising degree. The creator of the phenomenally successful Star Wars series recently explained that the climactic scene in one of his moves - in which the evil “Empire’s” giant war machines are destroyed by fuzzy little good guys with wooden bows and arrows - was inspired by the Vietnam experience. No matter that in Vietnam the Communist “good guys” packed Soviet automatic rifles and, in 1975, rode state-of-the-art Russian tanks across the South Vietnamese border. The propaganda of disproportionate forces in Vietnam, the myth of small/good versus big/bad, did enough damage to help lose the war for the United States and the people of South Vietnam. Today it is one symptom of the Vietnam syndrome to the extent that it makes Americans ashamed of their power, guilty about being strong, and forgetful about the need to be willing to use their power to protect their freedom and the freedom of others.</ref>

The prequel trilogy also had some implied pot-shots at then-president George W. Bush and his War on Terror, and there was also an implied promotion of moral relativity in ''Revenge of the Sith'' (where Obi-Wan, when confronting Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the climax, stated in reply to Anakin's declaration that Obi-Wan is his enemy if he's not with him that "only a Sith deals in absolutes."). A similar promotion of moral relativity and postmodernism was shown in ''Return of the Jedi'' where Obi-Wan admitted that his claim that Vader killed Anakin Skywalker was "true from a certain point of view," as well as further elaborating his claim by stating that "[[Subjectivism|a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.]]" The same movie's ending also carries an implicit promotion of cannibalism. In addition, the Trade Federation and its motives in ''The Phantom Menace'' was crafted by George Lucas to be a negative response to the Republican Revolution of 1994, and in particular Newt Gingrich's Contract with America (with Gingrich himself being a partial namesake of the main villain, Viceroy Nute Gunray). ''Attack of the Clones'' and to a lesser extent ''Revenge of the Sith'' also had very blatant anti-war themes and a very negative portrayal of the military, as a large part of the plot involved creating a military for the republic (and in the case of ''Revenge of the Sith'', the near end of the Clone Wars), with the narrative strongly implying that even forming a military at all was somehow a threat to freedom. To a lesser extent, the Prequel trilogy also has a negative depiction of family values, since it's implied that even holding attachments to family or trying to start a family leads directly to turning to the Dark Side, with Yoda even stating that such acted as "the shadow of greed." Lucas, in an interview with Time Magazine, also made similar jabs on family when explaining Anakin's character arc and his eventually becoming Darth Vader, where he said "Because he [Anakin Skywalker] gets attached to things...He can't let go of his mother...his girlfriend...things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side because you fear that you're going to lose things. You fear you're not going to have the power you need."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20020923140712/http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/tfn.cgi?storyID=15712</ref>

In addition, the director for ''Episode VII: The Force Awakens'', [[J.J. Abrams]], admitted in a press release that he deliberately made Finn black in order to ensure diversity among the characters, hinting at it pushing the leftist [[diversity]] agenda.<ref>https://www.cnet.com/news/director-j-j-abrams-weighs-in-on-diversity-in-the-star-wars-universe/?_escaped_fragment_=#! Two audience members jointly asked Abrams whether -- given his track record of helping build a diverse cast as director of the "Star Trek" reboot films -- he could confirm if there will be more Asian characters in the Star Wars universe. Asian characters are few and far between in the Star Wars franchise -- one appears in the original trilogy's last film, ''Return of the Jedi'', but for only four seconds before dying in a fiery explosion. Abrams said that while he won't be casting future films in the franchise, because he's directing only ''Episode VII'', he did include Asian characters in ''The Force Awakens'', which opened December 18. "I think it's important people see themselves represented in film," Abrams said. "I think it's not a small thing."</ref> Also, the film also hints at a militant [[feminist]] agenda by having Leia act as general and Rey not allowing anyone to save her, something that conservative commentator John Nolte mentioned was a [[detraction]] for the film.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/12/17/star-wars-the-force-awakens-review-j-j-abrams-repents-for-the-sins-of-george-lucas/</ref> In addition, the ending award ceremony in ''A New Hope'' was deliberately modeled after the stadium scene from the infamous Nazi movie propaganda ''The Triumph of the Will''. Ian McDiarmid, the actor who played the saga's main villain [[Emperor Palpatine]], had also implied in an interview with ''The Guardian'' around the time ''Revenge of the Sith'' was released that George Lucas had deliberately made the films for primarily eight-year olds specifically to indoctrinate them into Lucas' leftist view of the world.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/nov/07/theatre1 He [McDiarmid] also bristles at the notion that the Star Wars films are totally hollow entertainments. "I remember when I sat there in the Evil Emperor's swivel chair and George [Lucas] said things like 'does it remind you of the Oval office?' And I realised that at that time Richard Nixon was in his mind. 

"And I see that in the Guardian's review of the DVD - not favourable, of course - mention is made of the fact that there are lines that sound really contemporary. But the reviewer decided that was by chance: no, no, no, no. Entirely by design. 

"George knew that eight-year-olds, for whom these films are primarily intended, are very impressionable, and he wanted to make the right impression. So the whole film is about the unnecessary rise of fascism. In other words: watch out, they're all after your freedom, particularly when they're talking about defending freedom. Without getting over-extended about it, that is at the heart of these movies."</ref>

[[Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi]] also received strong criticism for its apparent 'SJW' bias<ref>Toto, Christian (December 19, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/19/last-jedi-critics-mostly-conservative/ As ‘Star Wars’ fans cheer, conservative film critics point out problems with ‘Last Jedi’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 20, 2017.</ref> It is also speculated that the leftist POV pushing caused fans to boycott the 2018 film [[Solo: A Star Wars Story]].<ref>https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/967205/Star-Wars-Han-Solo-FLOP-Last-Jedi-fan-BACKLASH-boycott-box-office-cast-sequel-cameo</ref> J.J. Abrams also heavily implied that the then-in-development final episode ''The Rise of Skywalker'' will feature homosexuals as part of "representation",<ref>https://variety.com/2019/film/news/star-wars-finn-poe-not-boyfriends-lgbtq-representation-1203423286/</ref> which was ultimately confirmed in pre-release screenings, where two members of the Resistance, both female, engaged in an on-screen kiss while celebrating a major victory against the First Order.<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-rise-skywalker-features-franchise-s-first-same-sex-kiss-1263256</ref>
|$460,998,007
|-
|''Starship Troopers''
|1997
|R
|Although it overall depicts the Military in a protagonistic light and arguably is pro-war and pro-military, the director of the film, Paul Verhoeven, implied it was actually supposed to push an anti-military, anti-war message where it implied that America during the Cold War were automatically fascists simply because they are entering war, and specifically stated it was "a natural evolution for post-World War II America." In addition, to reinforce Verhoeven's message, he deliberately modeled various scenes after ''Triumph of the Will'' and other pro-Nazi propaganda scenes, as well as modeled the protagonists' uniforms after the uniforms utilized by the Nazis (i.e., the character Carl, played by Neil Patrick Harris, wearing a uniform that was modeled after the [[SS]]). When asked by Michael Ironside, who was one of the people who had a role in the movie and had read the original book, about why he made the movie despite Verhoeven's leftist politics, he answered "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships, but it's only good for killing ******* bugs!" (note that fascism is not "right wing", it is left wing, so Verhoeven's incorrect regarding which wing the Nazis/fascists were part of).
|$54,814,377
|-
|''Sudden Death''
|1995
|R
|Disgraced fire fighter now becomes a laughingstock fire marshal uncovers an terrorist plot at a Hockey game plans to redeem himself and protect his children and the Vice President from said terrorists. However they're not Islamic, which may have been because the film was trying to be politically correct.
|$20,350,171
|-
|''Super''
|2010
|R
|A short-order cook becomes a superhero after a vision from God. He frequently turns to prayer and a Christian television show for guidance. Even though his wife leaves him for a drug dealer, he remains loyal to her for the whole picture. At the same time, foul language, violence, and brief nudity scenes are included.
|$327,716
|-
|''Team America: World Police''
|2004
|R
|While it is clearly pro-military, pro-America, and anti-Hollywood, the movie is riddled with liberal values, including toilet humor and vulgar language throughout. The movie's foul-mouthed theme song favors abortion, slavery, pornography, and Democrats, while having no positive reaction to Republicans, which makes sense because the screenplay was written by the creators of ''[[South Park]]'' and ''The Book of Mormon''.
|$32,786,074
|-
|''The Terminator''
|1984
|R
|Takes the side of humanity in this man vs machine battle. However, it is anti-war, anti-Capitalist and comes from liberal atheist James Cameron, in which he imagines the military being the cause of the downfall of man.
|$78.3 million
|-
|''Terminator 2: Judgement Day''
|1991
|R
|The second film in the Terminator Franchise by Liberal director James Cameron. While it does have anti-war and anti-capitalist themes, and also dabbles in pro-feminist views via Sarah Connor's change in overall character, it is also pro-family. John Connor reconnects with his mother and the Terminator who serves as his protector becomes like a father to him, so much so that John cries when the Terminator chooses to sacrifice himself to ensure that Skynet would never be built.
|$523.7 million
|-
|''[[Titanic]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Every life has value, and the most powerful men give up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first, while the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized. The film broke the record in movie revenues before the environmentalist nightmare that was ''Avatar''. However, ''Titanic'' gives some hints at a pro-socialist view, and a key scene involving Rose being drawn in the nude is evocative of pornography.
|$600,779,824
|-
|''[[Trainspotting]]''
|1996
|R
|It's been debatable if the film is anti-drug.
|$16,491,080
|-
|''U-571''
|2000
|PG-13
|Had a plot which was based on the first capture of a [[German]] [[Enigma machine]] in [[World War Two]]. Despite the film being patriotic to America, the facts are wrong as the Enigma machine was captured by the [[British]] in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.
|$77,122,415
|-
|''The Twilight Saga''
|2008-2012
|PG-13
|Starred by anti-military liberal [[Kristen Stewart]] and glorifies [[vampire|vampires]], but it also makes fun of [[public school culture]] and [[modernism]] while promoting [[abstinence]] until marriage, traditional courtship and marriage, and the [[pro-life]] movement. It was written by a [[Mormon]].
|$1,365,922,346
|-
|''Van Helsing''
|2004
|PG-13
|Thanks to [[Hollywood values]], Van Helsing isn't portrayed as the Christian character he should be, but the film still gets its good vs. evil message across. As well as portraying the Catholic church in a positive light. The director Stephen Sommers has made conservative films ''The Mummy Returns'' and ''G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra'' though.
|$120,177,084<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=vanhelsing.htm</ref>
|-
|''Wall-E''
|2008
|G
|The movie shows the dangers of big government (BNL), however it is also anti-capitalist and pro-environmentalism as BNL is a corporation.
|$223,808,164
|-
|''The Way We Were''
|1973
|PG
|Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women. Stars uber-liberal [[Barbra Streisand]].
|$49,919,870
|-
|''We're the Millers''
|2013
|R
|A drug dealer, stripper, runaway, and average loser pretend to be a family to sneak marijuana out of Mexico. However they learn the value and importance of family. The villains of the movie are all drug gang men, the film also features a stripper scene, and whether or not the film is anti-drug in the end is debatable.
|$150,394,119
|-
|''Yours Mine and Ours''
|2005
|PG
|The widower father of a conservative family marries a widowed mother of a liberal family. Their two difference lifestyles contradict with each other, and the film does not really decide whose lifestyle is better. On the one hand, at one point, the liberal children fool the conservative children into thinking there is a house fire, so they can have the bathrooms for themselves. On the other hand, the children work together in another scene and use conservative tactics to end bullying without the help of an authority figure. In the end, the children learn to put their differences aside and realize that family is what matters more.
|$53,412,862
|}

Please add more!

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
* [[Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows]]

[[Category:Essays about Liberals]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category:Worst Liberal Movies]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Worst Liberal Movies}}

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2020-10-25T02:49:45Z

MAGAViking: /* Politically liberal live-action films */

[[File:Trump-tweet-hollywood-and-hunt-movie (1).jpg|right|359px|]]
NOTE: We at Conservapedia do not care if a movie is considered a "classic" or that it's a famous movie that many people have nostalgia for. If it has liberal elements and/or the creators of a certain movie had some liberal agenda in mind when they crafted the story's narrative, we will call it out. Just because people love movies doesn't mean that Hollywood isn't trying to push a liberal agenda with them.

While a good amount of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|great conservative films]] is produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to produce films that attempt to normalize and aggrandize amoral lifestyles and liberal bias. Below is a list of some of the more outrageous examples:

==Politically liberal live-action films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''The 5th Wave''
|2016
|PG-13
|The military consists of evil aliens in what was overall a failed franchise that couldn't get on the recent young adult book-to-film bandwagon.
|$34,912,982
|-
|''Alien'' Franchise
|1979-2017
|R
|This pro-feminist, anti-capitalist film franchise was originated by atheist Ridley Scott. The first film was proven to be alarmingly similar to the 1965 film ''Planet of the Vampires'',<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzToy-Tjz5g</ref> but since it fitted the left's agenda, they didn't care and gave it biased reviews anyway. The second film, ''Aliens'', is an anti-Vietnam statement<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref> and, just like its predecessor, copies another previous feature (in this case, the 1954 film ''Them!''<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoX-C9J4Zk</ref>).
|$515,930,723 (all together)
|-
|''All the Way''
|2016
|TV-14
|The 2016 HBO film based on the presidency of Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] is a good example of a historical revisionist film, palatable for liberals' regressive dominion of the media. Liberals seized the opportunity with the film to distort history in order to hold Johnson in high regard and also ignored many of the President's faults, including his racism, the War on Poverty and how it created a welfare state which, by design, destroyed untold numbers of African American families.
|
|-
|''American Psycho''
|2000
|R
|Don't be fooled by the false patriotic title. It's the most [[Anti-American]] film you'll ever see because it attempts to pass an Investment Banker off as a secret serial killer.<ref>https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/American_Psycho_Harron_Turner.html</ref><ref>https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-mergers-acquisitions</ref>
|$15,070,285
|-
|''Assault on Wall Street''
|2013
|R
|Uwe Boll (often referred to as the worst director of this generation and known for his furious, vulgar, and spiteful responses to negative reception)<ref>https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Uwe-Boll-considered-one-of-the-worst-film-directors-in-history</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BvLQb2uwW4</ref> makes one of the most historically inaccurate modern films that blames capitalism for the [[Recession of 2008|Great Recession]] and the downfall of the everyday man's life. The film plays out like an angry middle school boy's fan fiction revenge story, in which all the bankers are summarily executed (as in the [[Russian Revolution]]). Boll has said how "We need to ****ing kill the rich", which only shows how uneducated he is.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJwEAqzFs4</ref>
|
|-
|''Apocalypse Now''
|1979
|R
|This overindulgent, anti-war diatribe portrays the American military as corrupt, incompetent [[drug addiction|drug-users]].
|$78,784,010
|-
|''Battleship Potemkin''
|1925
|NR
|This silent Communist film heralds the Soviet Revolt on the Tsarist Russian battleship ''Potemkin''. When mutinying, the sailors murder a Christian chaplain aboard, which is shown as an act of "heroism".
|N/A
|-
|''The Big Green''
|1995
|PG
|The movie had one of the characters blame "Reaganomics" for the lack of job opportunities in the town and also one of the team's players was an anchor baby. In the end, one of the coaches, who was a sheriff in Texas, was able to get the player and his illegal mother a way to stay. So it was also favorable toward illegal immigration.
|$17,736,619
|-
|''The Birth of a Nation''
|1915
|N/A
|This infamously racist film, the longest feature ever made at the time, begins by documenting the [[American Civil War]], then depicts the [[Ku Klux Klan]] as "heroes" who vanquish people of color, who are black racial stereotypes, from political positions and from their lawful right to vote (the KKK was founded by the Democrat Party, even though the Left has repeatedly tried denying the connection between the two). It was the first ever film to be shown at the White House under Democrat President [[Woodrow Wilson]], and it significantly influenced his already-racist core to segregate the White House and various departments.
|
|-
|''Blue State''
|2007
|R
|What looks like a romantic comedy actually encourages the false idea that [[liberalism]] must be established and conservatism abolished in America, as the main character follows up on his absurd vow to move to Canada if [[George W. Bush]] is re-elected president.
|
|-
|''Bob Roberts''
|1992
|R
|This anti-conservative propaganda piece, directed by leftist Tim Robbins and released during the 1992 election, has a similar premise to that of ''The Candidate'' and denigrates conservatives.
|$4,479,470
|-
|''Borat''
|2006
|R
|Liberal shock jock Sacha Baron Cohen falsely portrays American conservatives as uneducated racists.
|$67,800,000
|-
|''Borat 2''
|2020
|R
|Sacha Baron Cohen goes a step further making a pro-Biden propaganda film. He tries to blame [[COVID-19]] on [[Donald Trump]] and falsely accuses him of being a [[fascist]]. He makes matters worse when he harasses patriots like [[Mike Pence]] and [[Rudy Giuliani]] and falsely portrays them as pedophiles.
|
|-
|''Born on the Fourth of July''
|1989
|R
|This radically anti-[[Vietnam War]] biographical film was produced and directed by Communist sympathizer and twice wounded Vietnam War veteran Oliver Stone, starring Tom Cruise as paralyzed Vietnam War vet-turned-anti-Vietnam War leftist protester and Communist sympathizer [[Ron Kovic]].
|$70,001,698
|-
|''Bushwick''
|2017
|TV-MA
|The dystopian thriller features Red State dwellers (depicted as racist) declaring war on Hipster Brooklyn.
|N./A
|-
|''The Butler''
|2013
|PG-13
|[[Ronald Reagan]] is falsely portrayed as indifferent toward apartheid in South Africa; Nancy Reagan is played by anti-American traitor Jane Fonda, and staunch feminist Oprah Winfrey plays Cecil's wife.
|$116,632,095
|-
|''The Candidate''
|1972
|PG
|This "comedy" fails to be a political satire as it fails to lampoon both sides of the coin and supports [[George McGovern]] at every turn. It was released during the 1972 election year as a smear campaign against [[Richard Nixon]] and his conservative colleagues. Conservative star [[James Stewart]] refused to star in it for that reason.<ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068334/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv</ref>
|
|-
|''[[Capitalism: A Love Story]]''
|2009
|PG-13
|Michael Moore, staying true to his propaganda film format, relentlessly attacks America's [[capitalist]] [[economy]] with claims of alleged financial inequality.
|$14,363,397
|-
|''Casualties of War''
|1989
|R
|This anti-Vietnam war statement film starring Sean Penn involves a gang of American soldiers raping a Vietnamese woman. This paints America soldiers as the bad guys while failing to acknowledge how the Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, and other Communist Insurgents did the same thing to a far larger scale.
|$18,671,317
|-
|''Che''
|2008; 2009
|NR
|As implied by the name, the film is a two-part biopic for the Argentine Marxist terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]], who is treated sympathetically as a "martyr" for Communism.
|US$40.9 million
|-
|''The China Syndrome''
|1979
|PG
|A fictional [[nuclear power]] plant melts down. The film greatly over-hypes this risk of a [[nuclear accident]] (or meltdown) and the resultant damage. This film, along with the [[Three Mile Island]] incident (which occurred shortly after the film's release), are both credited for killing the nuclear power industry in America.
|$51,718,367
|-
|''A Clockwork Orange''
|1972
|X
|Revels in sex and violence and mocks Christian prison education. Depicts police as thugs recruited from street gangs.
|
|-
|''The Contender''
|2000
|R
|This film about the 2000 presidential election is little more than a pro-[[Al Gore]] propaganda piece by liberal studio executives and [[Hollywood values]]. Conservative star Gary Oldman also told IGN that the film was to supposed to be apolitical, but it was edited to vilify Republicans.<ref>http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/02/26/interview-with-gary-oldman</ref>
|$17,872,723
|-
|''Das Boot''
|1981
|R
|This anti-American war film looks at [[World War II]] from the Nazi perspective.
|$11,487,676
|-
|''Day of the Dead''
|1985
|R
|Liberal scientists who plan to tame zombies are the "heroes", while the common sense conservative soldiers (whose plan is to euthanize them all) are the "villains".
|$5,000,000
|-
|''Dawn of the Dead''
|1978
|R
|Besides containing outbursts of graphic violence, this stand-alone sequel to George A. Romero's ''Night of the Living Dead'' is against capitalism because the consumers are zombies.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9487PyyblpQ</ref> The 2004 Zack Snyder-directed remake abandoned this.
|$55 million
|-
|''Dead Man Walking''
|1995
|R
|It senselessly criticizes [[capital punishment]] with an ending that left some liberal viewers even more confused.
|$39,363,635
|-
|''The Devil's Backbone''
|2001
|R
|Promotes the Communistic Spanish Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War as "good guys" while demonizing [[Francisco Franco]]'s forces. These themes, promoted by Marxist director Guillermo del Toro, were later expanded upon in ''Pan's Labyrinth''.
|US$6.5 million
|-
|''[[The Dictator]]''
|2012
|R
|A Middle Easterner takes over America in this raunchy, vulgar "comedy" straining for controversy.
|$59,650,222
|-
|''Dogville''
|2003
|R
|An [[Anti-American]] propaganda film.
|$16,680,836
|-
|''Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb''
|1964
|NR
|Loosely based on Peter George's 1958 thriller novel ''Red Alert'', this black comedy is against war, the military, and nuclear weaponry and tries to downplay the seriousness of Cold War-era fears of a nuclear apocalypse.
|$9.4 million in North America
|-
|''The East is Red''
|1964
|NR
|A Communist Chinese dance epic made during the Cultural Revolution. This was made with direct input of Mao Zedong himself. The film depicts Mao as the "savior" of China, and has many typical pro-Communist messages one would expect.
|Unknown
|-
|''The Eternal Jew''
|1940
|NR
|This anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda film was made with direct input from Adolf Hitler, who made sure the anti-Semitism was as blunt and direct as possible. Most audiences were shocked at the crudity of the messages.
|Unknown
|-
|''Fahrenheit 9/11''
|2004
|R
|A [[Michael Moore]] movie, which distorts the tangential link between the [[Bush]] family and the [[Bin Laden]] family. The title was also taken from ''[[Fahrenheit 451]]'', a book that warned people about book burnings, proving that not only do liberals steal titles from other works, but aren't even creative on how to have the titles directly connect to their works.
|$119,194,771
|-
|''Fair Game''
|2010
|PG-13
|Another Bush bash flick starring [[Communist]] Sean Penn. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. It's a typical un-American Hollywood film with "The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and [[Dick Cheney]]'s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses." There's also no mention of Iraq Liberation Act which was signed by [[Bill Clinton]] five years before the war in Iraq.
|$9,540,691
|-
|''Fire Down Below''
|1997
|R
|Steven Seagal plays a Gary Stu-like role in this environmentalist feature.
|$16,228,448
|-
|''[[Frost/Nixon]]''
|2008
|R
|As implied by the title, it attempts to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].
|$18,622,031
|-
|''Game Change''
|2012
|Not Rated
|[[Liberal]] haters play [[conservative]]s in an [[HBO]] film about [[Sarah Palin]]. Many debunked controversies are highlighted in the plot. Both [[John McCain|McCain]] and Palin denounced the film and called it fiction.
|NA - TV
|-
|''God Bless America''
|2011
|R
|Despite its name the movie is a rip-off of the conservative film ''Falling Down'', this "comedy" has a miserable man and his foul-mouthed [[nihilist]] girl sidekick summary executes [[Tea Party]] members, a Fox News like-host, Christians, and other conservative stereotypes.
|$123,000
|-
|''The Good Shepherd''
|2006
|R
|Despite covering the founding of the CIA, the film was extremely anti-CIA in its messaging, where it doubles down on making the CIA look as bad as possible and overemphasizes on CIA failures such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and their experimenting with LSD, while conveniently ignoring the crimes the KGB and similar intelligence agencies within the Soviet bloc.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/</ref>
|$99.5 million
|-
|''Green Zone''
|2010
|R
|Is extremely anti-War on Terror to such an extent that it comes across as blatantly anti-American, as it repeats the falsehood that Pentagon officials lied about there being WMDs in Iraq simply so they could gin up a war in the Middle East (completely ignoring that various other intelligence agencies, including even France, a country that didn't even want a War with Iraq, acknowledging that Saddam had WMDs), and even had the main villain, who was modeled after Donald Rumsfeld, sending assassination teams against those in the know about the conspiracy. The film even went as far as to portray Iraqi terrorists as the "good guys". The film was also notorious as being Universal Studios' biggest box office bomb as a result.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/3/</ref>
|$94.9 million
|-
|''Heaven's Gate''
|1980
|R
|This notorious box office bomb comes from Marxist filmmaker Michael Cimino portrays America as the villain in the Johnson County War and has an anti-capitalist rhetoric and features a pro-illegal immigration message. Furthermore, it glamorizes prostitution and adultery.
|
|-
|''Hidden Agenda''
|1990
|R
|Depicts the [[IRA]] oppressed freedom fighters while painting the Unionists as monsters. The film also doesn't speak highly of [[Margaret Thatcher]] either.
|
|-
|''The Hunt''
|2020
|TBA
|Upcoming thriller film, based in part on the 1924 short story ''The Most Dangerous Game'' but given a modern political twist, focusing on conservatives from different walks of life being rounded up and hunted for sport by rich elitist liberals. Wikipedia claims in its article about the movie that it is "satire" and, in the article, stated that the movie drew criticism from members of the conservative media as an "alleged" portrayal of liberals hunting supporters of Donald Trump (with the term "alleged" inserted in the article in an attempt to brush off and dismiss said criticism), but it is simply Hollywood elites engaging in thinking out loud about what they wish to do to those who don't agree with or support their leftist political/social groupthink. The movie drew high-profile criticism from none other than President Trump, who used it to criticize Hollywood for its racism, hatred and promotion of violence in the media, which it then uses inflammatorily to blame others and create chaos,<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/08/09/donald-trump-thunders-against-racist-hollywood-they-create-violence-then-try-to-blame-others/ Donald Trump Thunders Against Racist Hollywood: "They Create Violence, Then Try to Blame Others"] at Breitbart News Network</ref> while conservative author [[David Horowitz]] called for the movie not to be released, stating that it may serve only to incite easily-influenced leftists to commit violence.<ref>[https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/david-horowitz-racism-the-hunt-liberal/2019/08/08/id/927939/ David Horowitz to Newsmax TV: Left Seeks to 'Exterminate'] at Newsmax</ref> The movie was subsequently withdrawn from release by distributor Universal Pictures in the wake of the recent mass shootings in [[El Paso Walmart shooting|El Paso]] and [[Dayton nightclub shooting|Dayton]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcJGfYiUDDE Universal Studios pulls the movie ''The Hunt''] at Fox News YouTube channel</ref> It was eventually recut, with the trailers making clear that the rich elitist liberals are intended to be the villains.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/02/the-hunt-returns-with-a-trailer-making-it-known-liberal-elites-are-the-bad-guys/102988/</ref>
|TBA
|-
|''I, Tonya''
|2017
|R
|History revisionist film that paints criminal Tonya Harding as a victim, reframing the narrative around her implication in the crime of attacking Nancy Kerrigan as justfied.<ref>https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/971183001</ref><ref>https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/01/i_nauseated_the_oregonians_for.html</ref> There's also an anti-family theme as well as Harding's mother is protarayed as psycholically abusive, despite the fact that she was nothing like that in real life.<ref>https://people.com/movies/tonya-harding-mother-monster-friend/</ref>
|$53 million
|-
|''Independence Day: Resurgence''
|2016
|R
|Although it is the sequel to the patriotic and to a certain extent conservative film ''Independence Day'', it does not at all reference the concepts of patriotism, American exceptionalism, or even national sovereignty. Instead, most of the movie seems to support globalism, and Doctor Okun is revealed to be a homosexual despite such never being implied in the original film. Forced multicultural elements are present as well.
|$389.7 million
|-
|''JFK''
|1991
|R
|This historically inaccurate account on President John F. Kennedy's assassination serves liberal filmmaker Oliver Stone's insanely fanatic conspiracy theories. For example, the filmmaker pinpoints the blame to the "real murder" of Kennedy: the conservative politicians, the U.S. Military, and then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, all of whom want America to go to war in Vietnam because Kennedy rejected the American involvement. Stone described the film as a "counter-myth" to the Warren Commission's "fictional myth."
|$70,405,498
|-
|''Lolita'' (1997 film)
|1997
|R
|The second film to be based on Vladimir Nabokov's infamous novel, the first being by Stanley Kubrick. However, in contrast to the very tame Kubrick version (limited only by the censorship of it's day), this version indulges with the gratuitous sexuality that made the book so controversial. The story portrays the relationship of Lolita and Humbert as a beautiful romance. Also, as implied by the tagline of the film's poster, the main message is that "Age is Just a Number".
|$1.1 million
|-
|''The Lone Ranger''
|2013
|PG-13
|This attack on [[capitalist]]s and the [[military]] portrays the former as ruthless, greedy railroad executives and the latter as "thugs" who support their actions. It distorts the messages of its source material by displaying the [[Lone Ranger]], shown to be a smart intellectual character in the original TV and radio serials, as dumbfounded and unintelligent, instead featuring his sidekick [[Tonto]] (played by [[liberal]] [[marijuana|pot]]-smoker [[Johnny Depp]]) not only as the "star" of the film but as the Lone Ranger's "voice of reason", too.
|$89,302,115
|-
|''Love, Simon''
|2018
|PG-13
|This coming-of-age film is an attempt by Hollywood to create a "family friendly", pseudo-conservative take on the gay romance genre. While in theory this sounds less objectionable than most offerings of this kind, it could also be considered more deceptive and dangerous. This is because it obscures the uglier, raunchier aspects of the gay lifestyle in order to create a very misleading, "heartwarming" fantasy of gay life and relationships.
|$66.3 million
|-
|''The Magnificent Seven'' (2016 film)
|2016
|PG-13
|This remake of a Western about seven [[vigilante]] gunfighters out to save a peaceful Mexican farming village from marauders (itself an adaptation of the Japanese cinematic classic ''Seven Samurai'') suits the left agenda, as capitalists are the "villains".<ref>http://missliberty.com/magnificent-seven-remake-is-angry-radical-fantasy/</ref>
|$93,145,387
|-
|''Manderlay''
|2003
|R
|[[James Caan]] refused to star in this anti-American sequel to ''Dogville'', describing director Lars von Trier as anti-American and stated that he himself is an "ultra-conservative".
|$674,918
|-
|''The Matrix'' series
|1999 (''[[The Matrix]]''); 2003 (''The Matrix Reloaded'' and ''The Matrix Revolutions''); 2021 (Matrix 4)
|R
|A hacker discovers his world is a replica of the world as it was before a cataclysmic future event in which intelligent machines took over humanity, so he joins a resistance to end the machines' reign. Despite this salvation narrative, the whole trilogy glorifies anarchism and [[nihilism]] (even including a brief nod to [[Jean Baudrillard]]'s "On Nihilism" chapter from Simulacra and Simulation), hinting several times towards a pro-Communist, anti-American, [[anti-Christian]] view. The second film's Architect scene tries to give a "devastating critique/twist" to salvation myths, with the Architect as a malevolent allegorical substitute for the Christian [[God]]. In this same scene, a panel of screens implicitly compares [[George W. Bush]] to Hitler during a discussion of evil in the world, and it features wars and conflicts specifically involving America. In fact, far-[[leftist|Left]] [[race-baiting]] scholar Cornel West was hired to play a role in the film specifically because the [[The Wachowskis|Wachowski Brothers]] (as they were known at the time) were influenced by his pro-socialist/Communist and anti-American rhetoric. The first film's throwaway dialogue between the main villain Agent Smith and the treasonous freedom fighter Cipher is a shallow attempt at insulting [[Ronald Reagan]] because Smith implies that Cipher will become the next Ronald Reagan should he succeed in betraying his allies to the agents. The trilogy's overall depiction of religion is closer to Gnosticism, even with Neo, the main protagonist, presented as a savior-figure. The Wachowskis openly admitted in an interview that they deliberately modeled the entire story after Friedrich Nietzche's writings.<ref>http://www.equip.org/article/the-matrix-unloaded-revelations/</ref><ref>Peter Bart, “Cracking the Wachowski’s Code,” Variety.com, May 25, 2003.</ref> The trilogy has been cited as the cause for various murders, ultimately leading to a variant of the [[insanity defense]] known as the Matrix Defense<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/21/ctv.matrix.insanity/</ref>, and it shares similar themes to the [[Worst Liberal Video Games|Worst Liberal Video Game]] ''Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty'' because Hideo Kojima confessed that he intended to use the same themes for the game.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20130328062143/http://www.gamespot.com/news/hideo-kojima-speaks-about-the-matrix-2448486</ref> A fourth movie was announced to be in the works.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/08/the-wachowskis-announce-the-matrix-4-is-in-the-works/91350/</ref> The movies overall had several hints at a Marxist (and even Maoist) outlook,<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1408419/posts?page=1</ref> which was later confirmed by Larry Wachowski, or rather, Lilly Wachowski, who stated that "she" created the trilogy "out of a lot of anger and a lot of rage, and it's rage at capitalism and corporatized structure and forms of oppression.", as well as overall as an extension of "her" angst at the "oppression" of [[Gender confusion|being born male instead of female]].<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lilly-wachowski-shares-how-matrix-franchise-was-inspired-by-rage-oppression-before-transition-1296914</ref>
| $592,370,339 (all together)
|-
|''Midnight in Paris''
|2011
|PG-13
|The main character, a liberal author, is open-minded and intellectual. He has an unsuccessful relationship with a woman whose family is Republican and are depicted as being "materialistic", "selfish", "narrow-minded" and "hateful" towards any country that is not the United States.
|$56,816,662
|-
|''Milk''
|2008
|R
|Sean Penn portrays openly homosexual politician [[Harvey Milk]] in this biography.
|$31,841,299
|-
|''The Motorcycle Diaries''
|2004
|R
|Walter Salles directs this fawning monument to [[Communist]] terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]].
|$16,781,387
|-
|''Mulan''
|2020
|PG
|The live action remake of the animated film of the same name. It ends up doubling down on the feminist rhetoric from the original, implies big government is good, and is particularly infamous for being a blatant example of Disney's current management's hypocrisy where they refuse to do business over Georgia, yet not only worked with China to develop the film (including censorships), but also went as far as to specifically cooperate with various departments of the Xijiping province that held authority over concentration camps. The lead actress for the film even sang praises for the Communist Party during the latter's crackdowns on Democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong during filming.
|
|-
|''The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear''
|1991
|15
|The more openly liberal sequel to the apolitical ''The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!'' pushes environmentalism and attacks productive businesses, especially the oil industry.
|$86,930,411
|-
|''[[Night of the Living Dead]]''
|1968
|R
|This independent horror abomination by George A. Romero vilifies [[nuclear energy]], as nuclear fallout from an exploding space probe in Earth's atmosphere is said to be the cause of the recently deceased becoming reanimated. In addition, it negatively portrays police officers as racist: a group of officers kills Ben, the African American protagonist, when they mistake him for one of the dead, which Romero intentionally chose to have happen to accuse the police of being behind racial lynchings. Had two [[sequel]]s , ''Dawn of the Dead'' (1978 Italian) and ''Day of the Dead'' (1985).
|
|-
|''Nixon''
|1995
|R
|This historically inaccurate biography of [[Richard Nixon]] is directed by liberal filmmaker [[Oliver Stone]].
|$13,681,765
|-
|''Okja''
|2017
|N/A
|This environmentalist propaganda piece vilifies capitalists and essentially plagiarizes the Buster Keaton classic ''Go West''.
|
|-
|''On Deadly Ground''
|1994
|R
|The film demonizes the oil industry as greedy and unsympathetic while praising the [[EPA]].
|$38,590,458
|-
|''Pan's Labyrinth''
|2006
|R
|Aside from it promoting paganism and the occult, it also demonized [[Francisco Franco]]'s Spain and promoted the Spanish Republicans from the Spanish Civil War due to it being made by Marxist director [[Guillermo del Toro]].<ref>https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2007/01/19/pans-labyrinth-allegory-of-spanish-civil-war/</ref>
|$83.3 million
|-
|''Platoon''
|1986
|R
|Anti-Vietnam War and anti-American war film which depicts most of the American soldiers as psychopathic war criminals, while the "good" soldiers smoke marijuana, and also depicts the NVA as sympathetic. Was also made by the far-left filmmaker Oliver Stone, who in an especially shameful element of irony and hypocrisy was himself a Vietnam veteran.
|$6 million
|-
|''The Post''
|2017
|R
|An obvious promotion of the leaking of the ''[[Pentagon Papers]]''. It treats the liberal journalists who committed the leaking in a positive light, while depicting Nixon in a negative light (despite Nixon never being responsible for the Pentagon Papers in the first place, and it being done under the auspices of Democrats JFK and LBJ).
|$179.8 million
| ''The Purge (series)
|2013, 2014, 2016, 2018
|R
|Movie featuring gratuitous graphic violence, and normalization of violent degenerate behavior. It is based on a political movement called the "New Found Fathers of America, which is a reformation of the Republican party. This can be based on the fact that a majority of the people that played roles for characters of the "NFFA" are white and old, which is what Liberals see as the Republican party. The protagonists are what would generally be considered by the Democrats to be people who would vote for them (black, hispanic, asian, women, etc.)
|-
|''Recount''
|2008
|Not Rated
|The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]] and its aftermath in [[Florida]], presented from a [[Liberal bias|liberal-biased]] viewpoint. A look into how [[Democrats]] and their [[Mainstream media|liberal media]] supporters claim the [[Republicans]] "stole" the [[election]] and the alleged role of its party members that the Democrats claim "made it happen" (although in reality, it was the Democrats themselves who tried to steal the election for their candidate [[Al Gore]] [[United States presidential election, 2000#Recount|by attempting to commit vote fraud in Florida through ordering selective recounts in Democrat-friendly areas while ignoring Republican-strong areas]], only to be stopped when the US Supreme Court ruled the Democrats' end-run attempt around election rules to be illegal). Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real [[Warren Christopher]] and [[James Baker]] contend the film's portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue.
|NA - TV
|-
|''Redacted''
|2007
|R
|Brian De Palma’s 2007 fictional anti-Iraq War film funded by Mark Cuban. The film is credited with inspiring a [[terrorist]] attack that killed two U.S. servicemen in [[Germany]].
|$65,388
|-
|''Red Joan''
|2019
|PG-13
|Based on the life of Communist traitor Melita Norwood, who gave up schematics on the British nuclear weapons program to the KGB. The film may be vaguely anti-Stalinist, but is pro-Communist, anti-Cold War, and anti-Western. Near the end of the movie, when the woman's son accuses her of betraying her country, she insists that somehow she is the real patriot. It's also pro-feminist, as male characters are portrayed as supposedly belittling her, encouraging her to serve tea and do laundry, and rather than leaving these insignificances out of the story, the movie portrays it as integral to the plot when she supposedly tricked the British police into thinking she was stupid and asking them if they wanted tea, though that part of the story is in all likelihood inaccurate and never even happened. Also, the decision by United States President Harry Truman to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the Second World War is strongly condemned, and to an extent, is demonized. At the end of the movie, she arrogantly says ''twice'', "I was right." "Right" to give Joseph Stalin, the most evil man in history, instructions to build nuclear weapons? She refers to the fact that sharing the nuclear weapons secrets prevented the Cold War from turning hot, and while the situation of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) prevented such an occurrence, there never even would have been a Cold War if Stalin had never acquired nuclear weapons, or otherwise the U.S. would have won a lot sooner. The movie also implied that the tactics of the British police and MI5 were similar to the KGB. Imagine a film had been released portraying Jakiw Palij, the last ex-Nazi in the United States, who was deported by President Donald Trump to Germany, in such a sympathetic fashion. Just more communist propaganda from Hollywood.
|$9,800,000
|-
|''Reds''
|1981
|PG
|As a biographical film on the life of notorious American [[Communist]] journalist John Reed, ''Reds'' is a sentimental and overly romanticized portrait of [[Communism]], [[humanism]], and [[anarchism]].
|$40,382,659
|-
|''Red State''
|2011
|R
|Some of the most disgusting hate-filled liberal propaganda ever filmed, at least in the Obama era when America supposedly became a "center-left" nation. Starring John Goodman and a cast of nobodies. The film is premised on the idea that Red States are populated by the likes of anti-gay followers of an allegorical preacher in the vein of [[Fred Phelps]] of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] who performs ritual murder on gays ''ala'' [[Matthew Shepard]]. John Goodman of the [[ATF]] leads the federal government cavalry to the rescue evoking the glorious image of the Clinton era [[Waco massacre]]. Critics called it one of the director's "Twitter rants fleshed out into film with equal portions of bile sprayed at both church and state"; "Messy, overwritten, ...kind of a bore....it's not a horror movie by any usual definition. More like teen horror movie morphs into Waco disaster"; "fails onscreen and off at its world premiere ... A shoddy film and a bait-and-switch event fail to satisfy on any level"; "it's clear that the smart alec writer still has some things to learn about making a great film." Red State won the Best Motion Picture award at the 2011 Sitges Film Festival, while Michael Parks was named Best Actor.
|$1.1 million domestically (- $2.2 million loss over its $4 million budget)
|-
|''The Return of the Living Dead''
|1985
|R
|In another stand-alone sequel to ''Night of the Living Dead'', the military is supposedly responsible for the release of a toxin that turns people into zombies. The military is also shown to be inconstant, as they "fix" this by nuking the city of zombies. An anti-[[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] statement some may say (the Left feared that Reagan would create nuclear holocaust, which is present in this film).
|$14,237,880
|-
|''Robocop''
|1987
|R
|Left-wing smut-peddler Paul Verhoeven's failed attempt to depict all police forces and corporations as evil. It also contains an [[environmentalism|environmentalist]] message with the "6000 SUX," a car that pollutes and guzzles gas for no other reason than to be environmentally unfriendly. Verhoeven is also a member of the Liberal [[Jesus Seminar]], which also inspired him to make the movie a grotesque parody of Christ's resurrection.
|
|-
|''Sacco e Vanzetti''
|1971
|UR
|As implied by the title, the film acts as a biopic of the anarchist murderers [[Sacco and Vanzetti]], with them being portrayed in a sympathetic light. In addition, the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Song|Worst Liberal Song]] "Here's to You", also dealing with the two anarchists in a similar light, was released with this movie as part of its soundtrack.
|N/A
|-
|''Shoot 'Em Up''
|2007
|R
|An anti-second amendment film, the so-called "hero" is a [[nihilist]] and the "villains" are trying to defend gun rights and the Second Amendment.
|$12,807,139
|-
|''Short Circuit''
|1986
|PG (Should be PG-13)
|On top of just being an blatant ''E.T.'' rip-off, ''Short Circuit'' also downgrades the military (or the Reagan Administration in general).
|$40,697,761
|-
|''[[SiCKO]]''
|2007
|PG-13
|Another Michael Moore film which spread many falsehoods about American [[healthcare]] while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of [[socialized medicine]] such as now found in [[Obamacare]]. Memorably referred to [[Cuba]]n healthcare as being "better" than American healthcare.
|$24,540,079
|-
|''The Siege''
|1998
|R
|Don't be fooled by the fact that Bruce Willis is in it. Willis plays the antagonist, an Army general who institutes martial law in New York City after a wave of terrorist attacks. Portrays Muslims as the "victims" while demonizing the military.
|$40,932,372
|-
|''Star Trek: Into Darkness''
|2013
|PG-13
|Aside from it being a blatant ripoff on ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' in terms of plotline, the film also has several anti-War on Terror messages, as indicated by both Benedict Cumberbatch and Simon Pegg.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/2/22/4-ways-star-trek-into-darkness-shills-for-surrender-in-the-war-on-terror/</ref>
|$467.4 million
|-
|''Süss the Jew''
|1940
|NR
|Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda film, that was notorious for it successfully pushing the anti-Semitic agenda throughout Nazi Germany via a subtle method.
|Unknown.
|-
|''Syriana''
|2005
|R
|Is anti-War on Terror, with the film heavily implying that Saudi Arabia was in the middle of liberal reforms that America interfered with due to oil businessmen (despite the exact opposite being true).<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/4/</ref>
|$94 million
|-
|''They Live''
|1988
|R
|Capitalists are portrayed as evil aliens planning to rule the world. The director John Carpenter also claimed in interviews that the film was anti-[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/john-carpenter-they-live-was-about-giving-the-finger-to-reagan/#/0</ref>
|$13,008,928
|-
|''The Thomas Crown Affair''
|1968
|R
|Supports the claim that capitalism causes crime.
| $14 million
|-
|''Tomorrowland''
|2015
|PG
|Don't let the fact that the film had basis on the theme park proposed by [[Walt Disney]] fool you. The film was anti-capitalist and pro-liberal/progressive values propaganda with it pushing the exact opposite messages that Disney himself wanted to impart. Bill Whittle, when reviewing the film, even mentioned that had he still been alive and saw the film, Disney would most likely have torn up his proposal for [[Disneyland]] and proceeded to drink himself to death in despair of what the film claimed his idea was.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmxeoh69G4o</ref>
|$209.2 million
|-
|''Tout va Bien''
|1972
|NR
|[[Jane Fonda]] "art film" directed by [[Jean-Luc Godard]], who was notoriously anti-American and idolized [[Karl Marx]], is nothing more than a propaganda film for Communism, as it sympathizes with the youths who partook in the [[May 1968 riots|May 1968 Communist uprisings]] in [[France]] and features blunt anti-American imagery.
|
|-
|''Triumph of the Will''
|1935
|N/A
|The world's most infamous Nazi propaganda film (even though the Left denies it, the Nazis were in truth left wing National Socialists).
|
|-
|''Trumbo''
|2015
|R
|Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten who was jailed for his Communist beliefs, is portrayed as a free-speech martyr, and a "champion" of the First Amendment. All of his controversial beliefs are whitewashed, including his support of Lenin, Hitler (until the Nazi-Soviet Pact fell), Kim Il-Sung, and, of course, Stalin. Conversely, anti-Communists such as John Wayne, Hedda Hopper, Robert Taylor, Roy Brewer, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPA) are falsely portrayed as "hateful", "oppressive", and anti-free-speech.
|$7,857,741
|-
|''Truth''
|2015
|R
|Highly fictionalized political docudrama about the Killian documents controversy meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[George W. Bush]]. The film was not approved by then-current CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves and CBS refused to air advertisements for the film due to its, as the network stated, "inaccuracies and distortions".
|$2,541,854
|-
|''V for Vendetta''
|2005
|R
|Blatantly glorifies [[anarchism]], [[socialism]], [[Communism]] and [[homosexuality]].
|$70,511,035
|-
|''Vice''
|2018
|R
|Made by Socialist filmmaker Adam McKay, this movie exists solely to ridicule American patriot [[Dick Cheney]] and lies about his legacy, portraying him as an unlikable sociopath without morals.
|$75,500,000
|-
|''[[W.]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|A movie designed to denigrate the role of [[Christianity]] in U.S. [[politics]] and particularly in the life of [[George W. Bush]].
|$25,534,493
|-
|''White House Down''
|2013
|PG-13
|Mocks conservatives with a liberal plot twist that makes the [[TEA Party]] out to be "terrorists". This movie was made by uber-liberals to counter great conservative film; ''Olympus Has Fallen'', which depicts North Korean terrorists as the bad guys.
|$73,103,784
|-
|''Winchester''
|2018
|PG-13
|Based loosely on the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, California. The film focuses more on its anti-gun message than the actual paranormal events.<ref>https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/winchester-confronts-the-american-curse-of-firearms</ref>
|
|-
|''Z''
|1969
|R
|Liberal propaganda that blames the [[military]] for liberal wrongdoing.
|$14,283,305
|-
|}

==Socially liberal live-action films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days''
|2007
|NR
|This Romanian film baselessly supports [[abortion]]. Liberals praised it when it won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.
|$1,198,208
|-
|''A Fish Called Wanda''
|1988
|R
|The protagonists are criminals, thieves and liars. One character even tires to kill an elderly lady, her being the only witness to the robbery. Also promotes infidelity, with the lawyer having an affair with one of the criminals, and ends up leaving his wife and daughter.
|$62,493,712
|-
|''The Abyss''
|1989
|PG-13
|From liberal atheist James Cameron, this film pushes the absurd claim that global warming is real and that the military is evil.
|$90,000,000
|-
|''Alita: Battle Angel''
|2019
|PG-13
|From producer James Cameron and director Robert Rodriguez, this film supports feminism, environmentalism, and illegal immigration and anti-capitalist, as the villains of the film are depicted as wealthy slavers who live above the poor ghettos, whereas the heroes are violent street thugs who hate money.
|$404,800,000
|-
|''American Pie''
|1999
|R
|The first installment of a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions, even treating date rape as "funny".
|$102,561,004
|-
|''And Then We Danced''
|2019
|R
|This Swedish-[[Republic of Georgia|Georgian]] co-production pushes the homosexual agenda as it presents the story of a dancer who leaves his girlfriend and longtime dance partner to begin a homosexual affair with another male dancer. Controversy erupted and protests occurred when the movie was shown in its native Georgia due to the film's homosexual theme. On account of that theme, it did very poorly at the box office.
|$281,159
|-
|''Animal House''
|1978, full title ''National Lampoon's Animal House''
|R
|This college "comedy" glorifies [[alcohol abuse]], debauchery, [[nihilism]], extramarital sex, and all varieties of youthful rebellion. The dean, played by John Vernon, suggests that being "Fat, drunk and stupid, son, is no way to go through life" to one of the rebellious youth representing the rowdy Delta Tau Chi fraternity, but he's depicted as the villain because of that. After the Delta boys are finally punished by being collectively expelled from college, they exact their revenge by sabotaging a homecoming parade and do not face punishment for such a great misdeed. Even so, the film's "hero", portrayed by one of Hollywood's most amoral actors ever, John Belushi, goes on to become a U.S. Senator, which is passed off as humorous.
|$141,600,000
|-
|''Atomic Blonde''
|2017
|R
|This Cold War film's major themes are feminism, the LGBT agenda, and racism against those with dark hair and eyes.
|$51,573,925
|-
|''[[Avatar (film)|Avatar]]''
|2009
|PG-13
|The second highest-grossing feature in history, directed by liberal James Cameron, enforces many destructive messages, including [[environmentalism]], [[feminism]], and the absurd claim that nature is God. It also ridicules the military and large businesses. To make matters worse, the protagonist forms a rather creepy romance with the native princess, who is of another species, perhaps a symbol for bestiality. The overall plotline hints at endorsing environmental terrorism, which Cameron indicated that he himself supported.
|$760,507,625
|-
|''Bad Santa''
|2003
|R
|This insult to the sacred holiday of Christmas features gratuitous coarse language, sexual escapades, drunkenness, and the main plot involving a con man posing as a Mall Santa so he and his dwarf accomplice can rob the mall's safe. It was bad enough that critics panned Disney for allowing the trashing of a cultural icon like Santa Claus as well as even then-Disney CEO, Michael Eisner, to be disgusted with the resulting film, acting as one of the main reasons for Miramax being cut loose from Disney alongside ''Kill Bill''.
|$60 million
|-
|''Bad Santa 2''
|2016
|R
|This sequel follows the already revolting ''Bad Santa''. Miramax, which distributed this movie as well as its predecessor, was acquired in 2016 by beIN Media Group, which is owned by Islamic propaganda channel [[Al Jazeera]].
|$23.2 million
|-
|''Bad Teacher''
| 2011
|R
|Cameron Diaz stars as an awful high school teacher, who is always getting high and drunk, tries to get breast-implant surgery, and encourages cheating and stealing from her students. The movie contains no [[morals]] and is filled with offensive sexual content.
| $100,292,856
|-
|''Beginners''
|2011
|R
|Promotes homosexuality and "[[coming out of the closet]]".
|$5,790,894
|-
|''Being John Malkovich''
|1999
|R
|This biopic celebrates homosexuality and includes a large amount of vulgar humor.
|$637,721
|-
|''Ben & Arthur''
|2002
|
|As the title suggests, this is a pro-homosexual propaganda movie which also portrays Christians as "hateful bigots". The film has the reputation of being one of the most hated homosexual movies by critics and audiences alike, even among homosexuals. Wikipedia also acknowledges this, as this movie is on the page "List of movies considered the worst". Was a major box-office bomb.
|$40,000
|-
|''[[The Big Lebowski]]''
|1998
|R
|Glorifies [[drug abuse]], laziness, and [[nihilism]].
|$17,451,873
|-
|''[[Billy Elliot]]''
|2000
|R
|This British film stars a boy who represents the homosexual agenda by wanting to be a ballet dancer rather than play sports. There are very poor family values as the family is constantly cursing at one another.
|$21,995,263
|-
|''Bio-Dome''
|1996
|PG-13
|It's a stoner film with an environmentalist theme.
|$13,427,615
|-
|''The Birdcage''
|1996
|R
|Yet another pro-[[homosexual agenda]] and conservative bashing film.
|$124,060,553
|-
|''Blow''
|2001
|R
|Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.
|$52,990,775
|-
|''Blue is the Warmest Color''
|2013
|NC-17
|This French film supports the [[homosexual agenda]] by graphically showing lesbian sex and falsely idealizing the concept that homosexuals can be sound mentors to young children. At the Cannes Film Festival, which was headed by liberal [[Steven Spielberg]] and had a board that included ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' director, Ang Lee, it was unanimously awarded the top prize. t is widely believed that this victory was due to France's legalization of [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] eight days prior. At least one of the stars of the film admitted that she felt disgusted by her role in it.
|$2,199,787
|-
|''Boat Trip''
|2002
|R
|This film about two men who accidentally aboard a gay cruise shamelessly promotes the homosexual agenda and presents the attempted sexual assault of a man by a woman as "humorous".
|$15,020,293<ref>https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=boattrip.htm</ref>
|-
|''Boogie Nights''
|1997
|R
|A young man journeys through the pornography industry in the 1970s and 1980s and glorifies the exploitation of women.
|$26,400,640
|-
|''Boyhood''
|2014
|R
|Centered on a family raised by a single mother, it downplays the importance a father has on a child's growth and development, mocks conservative Christians, and promotes underage drinking and pot smoking.
|$44,400,000
|-
|''Boys Don't Cry''
|1999
|R
|It glorifies the choice of a young girl to embrace homosexual and transgender life choices, dishonesty, and pre-marital relations. Furthermore, it caricatures and exaggerates natural reactions to her perversion, all in aid of promoting the [[homosexual agenda]]. On that note, JoAnn Brandon, the real life mother of Teena Brandon (the aforementioned woman who entered those lifestyles), condemned the movie and especially the star Hilary Swank's acceptance speech (in particular, the former failing to specifically state the reason why Teena cross-dressed was due to mental and emotional trauma from her earlier being molested by a man while she was very young, and the latter for claiming that "Teena" was in fact male when thanking Teena).<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/mar/29/oscars2000.oscars</ref>
|$11,533,945
|-
|''[[The Breakfast Club]]''
|1985
|R
|What masquerades as a drama comparing the similar personalities of five seemingly very different teenagers in school detention really promotes the use of drugs, smoking, and extramarital sex. Although it does contain the conservative quote "You ought to spend a little more time trying to make something of yourself and a little less time trying to impress people", it is said by the main villain of the movie, the high school principal.
|$51,525,171
|-
|''[[Brokeback Mountain]]''
|2005
|R
|This nauseating "romance" film proves that [[liberals]] will [[shoehorning|shoehorn]] the homosexual agenda into anything, even Westerns. It was also an early example of production companies dictating film distribution services of what they should distribute to the local level, often against the distributor's own decisions.
|$83,043,761
|-
|''The Brothers Grimsby''
|2016
|R
|This vulgar film is loaded with sex jokes, sex scenes, nudity, one graphic elephant sex scene, and a joke about Donald Trump getting AIDS. Luckly it was a box office bomb.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/03/14/box-office-brothers-grimsby-flopped-because-it-didnt-look-good/#4a36b6f749d7</ref>
|$6,874,837
|-
|''But I'm a Cheerleader''
|1999
|R
|A lesbian [[public school]] [[cheerleading|cheerleader]] is attracted to other cheerleaders, portraying [[homosexuality]] as a legitimate lifestyle. The film attacks and ridicules [[reparative therapy]] and religious people, and it normalizes lesbians by depicting the star as a girly cheerleader, obviously a forced subversion of the lesbian archetype.
|$2,205,627
|-
|''Call Me By Your Name''
|2017
|R
|The ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'' of 2017, only this time pedophilia, in addition to homosexuality, is endorsed and displayed as "normal" and "intellectual".
|
|-
|''Caligula''
|1979
|UR (should be NC-17)
|This historical drama about infamous Roman emperor of the same name has been considered the most pornographic movie ever made, which led to it being a critical failure. It has unsimulated scenes of oral and anal sex, incest, and close-ups of the genitalia of both sexes, along with brutal violence. Upon release, several U.S. cities tried to prevent the movie from being played, though liberal courts repeatedly affirmed that it passed the Miller test (claiming that it was not obscene enough to be banned). Some lawyers defending it even lamented that it helped to form a conservative morality, which may have helped Ronald Reagan win the 1980 election.
|$23 million
|-
|''Captain Marvel''
|2019
|PG-13
|Based on the eponymous Marvel Comics superheroine and set in 1995, the twenty-first installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe follows Carol Danvers as she becomes Captain Marvel after Earth is caught in the center of a galactic conflict between two alien civilizations. In contrast to the rest of the film series up to this point, ''Captain Marvel'' is explicitly feministic, one example showing a deleted scene with Captain Marvel threatening a man for mild flirts including "Smile for me" and stealing his belongings. During an interview, Captain Marvel's actress Brie Larson shows some sexism and self-loathing racism by saying that she won't accept reviews about the movie from white men (even though she is herself white). The film was also notorious for Disney and Marvel going to extremes to ensure it had any chance at a box office success, including forcing theaters to make it the single showing for a week<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/some-reports-indicate-captain-marvel-is-the-only-movie-playing-at-some-theaters-during-premiere-week/78446/</ref> as well as having Rotten Tomatoes remove its negative reviews of the film.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/03/rotten-tomatoes-removes-thousands-of-negative-captain-marvel-user-ratings/79348/</ref><ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-censorship-circumvented-thanks-to-dissenter-extension/78084/</ref>
|$1.128 billion
|-
|''The Cat in the Hat''
|2003
|PG (Should be PG-13)
|This bastardization of an instantly recognizable children's classic, filled with adult humor and pandered to focus groups, is the reason why Dr. Seuss's widow has banned any live-action adaptations of Seuss's works. It won a one-time Golden Raspberry (or "Razzie") Award for "Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie (All Concept/No Content)" and was nominated for eight other Razzies.
|$134 million
|-
|''Chuck & Buck''
|2000
|R
|Debauched independent film about a man who revisits another man he traumatized through sexual grooming as a child. The message is that in some instances, groomers are the real victims and greatly misunderstood because of their need for casual sex. Also, if their victims weren't "brainwashed" by moralistic views about sex, most of them would consent to it and see it as a good thing, and no trauma would ever happen. In the film, when he meets the man he seduced in their youth, he encourages him to cheat on his wife, who is "holding him back", and have sex with him in order to desensitize him to hedonism and see monogamy as a perversion. The director and writer of the film is openly bisexual, and plays the role of the groomer who initiates the encounter. He admits it is based on his experiences and fantasies.
|N/A
|-
|''The Cider House Rules''
|1999
|PG-13
|Glorifies [[abortion]] and advocates "[[pro-choice]]" values to a fault.
|$57,545,092
|-
|''Chappie''
|2015
|PG-13
|Another "social" science fiction film that just abuses our [[First Amendment|first amendment right]] to bash capitalism. Neill Blomkamp also directed liberal films District 9 and Elysium too. On an optimistic note, the film got bad reviews (even from liberal critics)<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chappie/</ref> and the film did poorly in America (70% of its gross came from overseas).<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chappie.htm</ref>
|$31,569,268
|-
|''[[City of Ember]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|Currently the once-in-a-lifetime adaptation.
|
|-
|''[[Clerks]]''
|1994
|R
|Filled with constant vulgar [[profanity]]. Previously rated NC-17 before being appealed for an R rating.
|$3,151,130
|-
|''Clerks 2''
|2006
|R
|Sequel to the liberal comedy, filled with more profanity and even more disgusting acts that could not be in the budget of the original film.
|$24,148,068
|-
|''[[The Cosmic Slop]]''
|1994
|NR
|HBO trilogy focusing on minority science fiction. The main claim to fame was an adaptation of ''[[The Space Traders]]'', a race-baiting short story that was written by the infamous race-baiting leftist professor Derrick Bell.
|
|-
|''Cuck''
|2019
|NR
|As implied by the title, it mocks conservative values and paints conservatives and alt-right people as lunatics. Is also notorious for being released to a box office of $0.<ref>https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/cuck-movie-gets-woke-goes-broke-at-box-office/106756/</ref>
|$0
|-
|''Cuties''
|2020
|
|This depraved French movie shamelessly sexualizes pre-pubescent girls and has them dancing in sexually suggestive ways that no respectable '''adult woman''' would be seen doing. When asked if they supported pedophilia, producers at Netflix responded that they respected all religions, as if they really believed that pedophilia is actually a religion.
|
|-
|''Dallas Buyers Club''
|2013
|R
|Egregiously supports the homosexual agenda during its deadly-years [[AIDS]] epidemic..
|$27,298,285
|-
|''The Danish Girl''
|2015
|R
|One of the definitive pro-homosexual/gender confusion propaganda films. Eddie Redmayne portrays Einar Wegener, a landscape artist who stands in for a female model who no-showed for a planned painting made by Wegener's wife, Gerda. Einar, who has undergone gender confusion for years, snaps as a result of the modeling sessions where he stands in as "female" and he begins claiming to be a "woman" calling himself "Lili Elbe", which nearly leads to him being committed to an asylum. Einar later undergoes surgical mutilation to accommodate his delusion, but he dies of infection due to the mutilation.
|$11,114,018
|-
|''The Day After''
|1983
|Not Rated
|Attacks the military and conservative politicians, and encourages negotiation with Communists.
|NA - TV
|-
|''The Day After Tomorrow''
|2004
|PG-13
|Overdramatic, nonsensical portrayal of the consequences of fictional "[[climate change]]".
|$186,740,799
|-
|''Day of the Animals''
|1977
|PG
|Environmentalist propaganda that states "global warming" turns woodland animals into psychotic human-hunters. It also claims that humans must get what they deserve (which they do not).
|$2 million
|-
|''Dazed and Confused''
|1993
|R
|This coming of age film circa 1976, attempts to normalize [[promiscuity]] and [[drug abuse]] among teenagers and young adults.
|$7,993,039
|-
|''District 9''
|2009
|R
|Alien invaders are shown sympathetically, but the military, corporations, and humans in general are not.
|$115,646,235
|-
|''Django Unchained
|2012
|R
|Quentin Tarantino's Western gratuitously uses graphic violence and the n-word.
|$425,368,238
|-
|''Don’t Breathe''
|2016
|R
|The movie's protagonists are three burglars who break into homes (secured by one of their father’s security company) to steal items to sell. The "villain" of the movie is a blind army veteran, and the homeowner of the house they are breaking into. Although they do find he has kidnapped the girl who killed his daughter in a car accident. Also feminism is present with the the leader of the thieves being a girl.
|$89,217,875
|-
|''Doom''
|2005
|R
|Based on the video game that influenced the [[Columbine High School massacre|Columbine High School massacre]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060223025846/columbine.free2host.net/quotes.html</ref>, ll the military characters (except one) are corrupt. Fans of the game criticized it for not including much monster-themed action.
|$28,212,337
|-
|''Drag Me to Hell''
|2009
|R
|Despite being made by known Republican<ref>http://whatculture.com/offbeat/10-celebs-you-wouldnt-expect-to-be-republicans?page=4</ref> Sam Raimi, the film's premise dealt with a woman being condemned simply for doing what her job required her to do at the bank, with Raimi also implicitly stating that the gypsy who cursed her had sympathetic reasons for cursing the main protagonist despite the fact that she herself had explicitly foresaked paying mortgage three times. In addition, the means to counteract the Lamia (the creature responsible for sending people to Hell when cursed) were more explicitly Pagan than Christian.
|$90.8 million
|-
|''Easy Rider''
|1969
|R
|This slice-of-life drama follows two drug-addicted motorcyclists who glorify every aspect of the hippie lifestyle. Conservatives incorrectly portrayed as racist rednecks.
|$60 million
|-
|''Elysium''
|2013
|R
|This propaganda piece criticizes big business and supports [[illegal immigration]].
|$93,050,117
|-
|''Fantastic Four''
|2015
|PG-13
|Based very loosely on the comics of the same name and deprived of the source material's humor, the film portrays the military in a negative manner. Here, they only want to use superpowered teens as weapons. On top of that, they also changed the race of the Human Torch for political correctness/cultural Marxism reasons. The film was also infamous for its controversial behind-the-scenes history. The studio executives mandated reshoots without the director's knowledge of this and the final cut was gutted in the editing room. Director Josh Trank was so angered by this that he completely disowned the film.<ref>http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/josh-trank-disowns-fantastic-four-via-twitter-claims-studio-interference-322</ref>
|$56,117,548
|-
|''Fast Food Nation''
|2006
|R
|Despite its title and that fact that Bruce Willis is in it, the film is attacks fast food and capitalism while pushing [[environmentalism]], veganism, [[illegal immigration]], and extramarital sex.
|$1,005,539
|-
|''Fast Times at Ridgemont High''
|1982
|R
|Film glorifies [[drug abuse]], premarital sex, and [[abortion]]. It was also one of [[Sean Penn]]'s early film roles as he would go on to star in more liberal propaganda films.
|$27,092,880
|-
|''Female Trouble''
|1974
|NC-17
|This atrocious movie is made from the same director of ''Pink Flamingos'', starring an overweight delinquent student named Dawn Davenport (played by transvestite Divine) who abandons her family and starts a life of crime. Crime is glorified and embraced, for Dawn decides to start causing crime as a way to get famous, and she even shows no remorse for her actions while she is electrocuted at the end of the movie, thanking her fans for helping her gain infamy. Abuse is also glorified, from Dawn's contempt for her parents to refusing to let her daughter Taffy be a normal girl, beating her harshly and even threatening to kill her for joining Hare Krishna (and eventually does). When Taffy later meets her father who abandoned the family, he sexually harasses her, pushing an incest vibe as well. The movie also pushes the homosexual agenda, where one woman urges a man to become gay because she thinks of heterosexuality as boring, and it shows two close-up shots of male genitalia as well. Like with ''Pink Flamingos'', this movie got a positive reception from a rather morality-deprived audience.
|$25,000
|-
|''The Forest''
|2016
|PG-13
|Depicts the Aokigahara Forest in [[Japan]] as a scary place filled with vengeful ghosts. In reality, it is a sad place where people go to commit suicide.
|$37.6 million
|-
|''The Fourth Kind''
|2009
|PG-13
|Uses the real-life tragedies of deceased and missing citizens of Nome, Alaska to make money with a fictitious story about alien abductions.
|$47,709,193
|-
|''Freddy Got Fingered''
|2001
|R
|Contains a lot of crude and revolting gross-out sexual humor, including a scene where the main character actually makes a horse [censored]. Uses shock tactics in much the same way that ''[[Family Guy]]'' does. Won five Razzie awards, including Worst Picture and four awards (Worst Actor, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay and Worst Screen Couple) for star and director, Canadian "comedian" Tom Green.
|$14.3 million
|-
|''Get Out''
|2017
|R
|This racist horror comedy-drama follows an African American man who discovers to his shock that his white American girlfriend's parents transplant the brains of white Americans into the bodies of African Americans as if to strip their victims of African American cultural identity. It presents a false dichotomy between black and white culture and discourages American ideals such as interracial and intercultural integration, all while accusing white Americans of wanting to eliminate instead of integrate all racial subcultures in the nation.
|
|-
|''Ghostbusters'' (2016 remake)
|2016
|PG-13
|This staunchly feminist remake of the conservative horror comedy classic replaces all the original male heroes with women who appear to have only vaguely different personalities, and every male character is either unintelligent or mean-spirited. Racism and sexual innuendoes are present as well.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ikR-6uSMYz</ref> Also the remake also replaces the [[EPA]] with [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Homeland Security]] as the bad guys. Luckily, no one other than the world's most biased liberal critics liked it, as its trailer was known for being the most hated of its kind on YouTube.<ref>http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-trailer-most-disliked-movie-trailer-in-history/</ref> Sony was caught making fake reviews<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXv3w59raZ4</ref> and the film flopped at the box office <ref>https://www.imdb.com/news/ni60138331?fb_comment_id=1146766692061206_1146942958710246&comment_id=1146942958710246</ref> so tremendously that Sony Pictures Entertainment lost over $70 million.
|$120,049,002
|-
|''Glen or Glenda''
|1953
|Not rated
|Created by Ed Wood and widely regarded as one of the worst directors of all time, it celebrates cross-dressing and transsexualism.
|N/A
|-
|''Godzilla'' (1998 film)
|1998
|PG-13
|Liberal and homosexual director Roland Emmerich turns Godzilla into a girl and enforces the idea military does more damage than Godzilla. The film even fails to address the original message of the original 1954 Japanese film (the first ''Godzilla'' was created in response to fears of the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II), with the resulting film likewise being hated by Godzilla fans and by Toho Films, to the extent that the "Godzilla" in this film when later appearing in the mainline films was given a separate identity to the mainstream Godzilla and beaten easily. Liberals also panned the film, in particular a running gag which had the Mayor of New York doing a "thumbs up and thumbs down" vote in an unsubtle jab at Siskel and Ebert.
|$136,314,294
|-
|''[[Good Will Hunting]]''
|1997
|R
|Left-wing actors/writers [[Matt Damon]] and [[Ben Affleck]] created this coming of age film that is the main reason why [[Howard Zinn]]'s anti-American revisionist textbook ''A People's History of the United States'' became both public knowledge and provided in all universities and high schools across America. Matt Damon's character, Will Hunting, tells [[Robin William]]'s character in a pivotal scene, "You wanna read a ''real'' history book? Read Howard Zinn’s ''People’s History of the United States''. That book’ll f*****’ knock you on your a**.”<ref>https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/9/the-5-most-destructive-political-ideas-in-matt-damons-movies/5/</ref>
|$225,933,435
|-
|''Gringo''
|2018
|R
|Not only is the title of this movie a racial slur against white people, but this movie also egregiously promotes pot smoking. In addition, the main male character is extremely feminine, which suits Hollywood's stance on the traditional gender roles. This movie didn't even make the Top 10 its opening weekend, despite heavy marketing.
|
|-
|''Hair''
|1979
|PG (Should be R)
|Based on the Broadway musical, the film's profanity, its depiction of the use of illegal drugs, its treatment of sexuality, its irreverence for the American flag, and its gratuitous nudity caused much comment and controversy as it did when the stage musical first premiered in 1967. A product of the hippie counterculture and sexual revolution of the 1960s, several of its songs became anthems of the anti-Vietnam War peace movement.
|$15,284,643
|-
|''Hairspray''
|2007
|PG
|Poor [[moral]]s shown, encourages homosexual agenda, bad behavior, such as smoking, drinking, cursing. Many sexual comments are shown. It portrays conservatives and those with high expectations in a negative viewpoint.
|$118,871,849
|-
|''Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle''
|2004
|R
|The adventures of two pot-smokers who play up ethnic stereotypes.
|$18,250,550
|-
|''Horrible Bosses''
|2011
|R
|Three men try to kill their bosses. Two of the three bosses are wealthy businessmen. The film is also filled with offensive language and many sexual references. Was followed by a sequel that however supported the American Dream and capitalism.
|$117,538,559
|-
|''The Hottie and the Nottie''
|2008
|PG-13 (should be R)
|Ultra-liberal actress [[Paris Hilton]] stars in this movie that glorifies every aspect of the "bimbo", "dumb blonde" and "valley girl" lifestyles (all of which Hilton herself has embraced over time as part of her public persona) and contains demeaning depictions against those with dark hair and dark eyes, calling them "unattractive".
|$27,696
|-
|''The House That Jack Built''
|2018
|R (should be NC-17)
|According to director Lars von Trier, this ultra violent and sadistic serial killer film is meant to be seen as an analogy for [[Donald Trump]] (or as von Trier insultingly refers to him "Homo Trumpus") and his administration. This is a gruesome and vicious movie that glamorizes the murder of women and children - calling it a form of art. It relies heavily on Satanic imagery and Nazi iconography purely to shock and offend. Even most liberals were turned off by this movie!
|
|-
|''Howl''
|2010
|R
|Film about homosexual poet and [[beatnik]]-turned-[[hippie]], [[Allen Ginsberg]]. Promotes the [[homosexual agenda]] and the idea that writing about [[pornography]] is "protected" under the [[First Amendment]] and has "literary value".
|$617,334
|-
|''I Love You Phillip Morris''
|2010
|R
|A homosexuality-themed comedy-drama film about a homosexual inmate who escapes to reunite with his lover.
|$2,037,459
|-
|''[[Jackass]]: The Movie''
|2002
|R
|Essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story.
|$64,255,312
|-
|''Jennifer's Body''
|2009
|R
|This film starring Megan Fox promotes feminism and glorifies [[Satanism]], and contains a lesbian kiss and them making out.
|$16,204,793.
|-
|''Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom''
|2018
|PG-13
|Unfortunately, Christian movie star, Chris Pratt, cannot save this film from being a liberal disaster. This film, like its predecessor, "Jurassic World," is also very supportive of feminism. In fact, that is even more apparent, as Chris Pratt's character - Owen Grady - is depicted as heartless for not wanting to save the dinosaurs and preferring to be left alone; on the flip side, the more feminist Claire Dearing is now a dinosaur rights activist, using Owen's ''Velociraptor'' Blue to get Owen to save the dinosaurs with her. At the end of the film, the dinosaurs are released into the wild, putting billions of human lives in danger, clearly giving an environmental message. Also, one of the younger characters clearly looks like an SJW, with her character acting as such. Not only that, but one of the main antagonists calls her a "nasty woman" which is clearly a jab at Donald Trump. According to one of the actresses, Daniella Pineda, there was intended to be a scene (that was fortunately cut) that revealed that her character, Zia Rodriguez, was a lesbian when admitting she was fond of Chris Pratt's character.<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-star-daniella-pinedas-lesbian-reveal-cut-film-183618705.html</ref>
|$417,719,760
|-
|''Kids''
|1995
|NC-17
|Pornographic film concerning five rebellious underage teenagers in [[New York City]] engaging in graphic sex, violent acts, [[drug]]/[[alcohol]] use, and spreading [[HIV]].
|$7,412,216
|-
|''The Kids Are All Right''
|2010
|R
|Portrays homosexuality and homosexual parenting as a "normal" lifestyle.
|$20,811,365
|-
|''[[The Laramie Project]]''
|2002
|Unrated
|An adaptation of the play of the same name made by HBO to promote the homosexual agenda, including giving a one-sided, extremely biased perspective on the murder of Matthew Shepherd implying that his murderers had "homophobia" as a motive. It also has a significant anti-religious bent in it, where two of the documentarists (implied to be homosexual) tried to talk to a priest specifically to "piss him off," and also had one of the members breaking down from a priest being "hateful" simply because he implied the possibility that Matthew Shepherd will go to hell if he didn't repent for his homosexual activities.
|
|-
|''Legally Blonde''
|2001
|PG-13
|A pro-feminist musical that also promotes every aspect of the "valley girl" lifestyle. Smart people (such as those who go to law school) are described as "boring, ugly, serious people" by the father of Elle Woods (the film's protagonist). It also contains hidden demeaning remarks about dark-haired people. Spawned a sequel that, despite the patriotic-sounding title ("Red, White, and Blonde"), ultimately wasn't much better, which included a homosexual joke involving Elle Woods' pet chihuahua (despite the original film implying that said dog, who was male, was infatuated by the Taco Bell chihuahua mascot, a female).
|$96,520,674
|-
|''The Lost World: Jurassic Park''
|1997
|PG-13
|The film is pro-environmentalist, and features John Hammond, the original head of Jurassic Park, hiring environmentalist hippies to sabotage his own company in the name of releasing the dinosaurs back into the wild, with the protagonists being depicted as being in the right despite causing explicit destruction and death via their actions, as well as demonizing the corporation for trying to stop them. Also has an anti-hunting message due to one of the main antagonists explicitly being a hunter; adding to that is one of the "heroes" removing bullets from the hunter's gun, putting everyone in even more danger from the dinosaurs, though no one calls him out for it. It is to be noted that such a message not only was not present in the book it was adapted from, but it if anything was the complete antithesis to the anti-cloning message from both the original book by Michael Crichton and the 1993 film that adapted it and that ''Lost World'' acted as a sequel to.
|$618.6 million
|-
|''Léon: The Professional''
|1994
|R
|Disgusting film the features an assassin taking an orphan under his wing (even worse her family shows poor values and are nasty to each other). He then trains her to be an assassin herself to kill the corrupt [[DEA]] responsible for her parents murder, but also the assassin who's much older than her seems to be [[Pedophilia|romanticized by her]] (in a deleted scene they even have sex).
|$19,501,238
|-
|''Lethal Weapon 3''
|1992
|R
|Pro-gun control propaganda disguised as a buddy cop action film.
|$144,731,527
|-
|''Lethal Weapon 4''
|1998
|R
|The sequel now has a pro-illegal immigration message.
|$130,444,603
|-
|''Machete''
|2010
|R
|Open borders propaganda about illegals crossing the southern border. Southerners are portrayed as slack-jawed racists. Robert De Niro plays a corrupt Texas senator and Don Johnson plays the racist leader of a vigilante border group.
|$26,593,646
|-
|''Mad Max: Fury Road''
|2015
|R
|Feminist propaganda that endorses and celebrates anarchy. Also, it bears some "[[Plagiarism|similarities]]" to the John Wayne classic ''Stagecoach''. Fourth movie in the ''Mad Max'' film series first made famous by Mel Gibson in the title role between 1979 and 1985.
|$153,636,354
|-
|''Maleficent''
|2014
|PG
|Apparently represents the idea of revising the ''Sleeping Beauty'' story to focus on a lesbian relationship; although Aurora clearly loves Maleficent as a mother figure, Maleficent takes over the role of the prince and is revealed to be the person whose kiss of "true love" (given on the forehead) really saved Aurora. Revisionist piece which unabashedly promotes the feminist agenda to the extent that most of the males are either villains or useless, even going so far as to heavily hint at a transgender philosophy; promotes hard-core environmentalism, moral relativism and even Marxism; pretty much ruins the morality tale for ''Sleeping Beauty''. ''The Federalist'' also had a field day with the film stating how it promoted the leftist agenda and citing point by point its agenda.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/</ref> In particular, King Stefan, far from being depicted as a good father who gave up Aurora to the three fairies to protect her from the curse, was shown to not care for Aurora at all and was willing to let her die from the curse.
|$241,410,378
|-
|''Marat/Sade''
|1967
|R
|Inmates in a French insane asylum in 1808 put on a play about [[French Revolution]] figure [[Jean-Paul Marat]], directed by the [[Marquis de Sade]], that devolves into a violent orgy of destruction at the end of the movie. Basically nothing more than a celebration of violence and nihilism, yet it is lauded by liberal movie critics.
|-
|''Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil''
|1997
|R
|Don't be fooled by the fact that Hollywood conservative, Clint Eastwood directed this film or that it both takes place and was filmed in the overall conservative city of Savannah, Georgia. It is based on the equally bad nonfiction novel of the same name, and has LGBT, environmentalist, witchcraft, and anti-capitalist themes.
|$25,105,255
|-
|''Moonlight''
|2016
|R
|A coming-of-age film that glorifies drug use and [[homosexuality]].
|$27,557,396 <ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moonlight2016.htm</ref>
|-
|''[[Mortal Engines (film)|Mortal Engines]]''
|2018
|PG-13
|This USA-New Zealand co-production pushes the feminist propaganda that endorses and celebrates anarchy. Also, it bears some "[[Plagiarism|similarities]]" to many classics, including ''[[Star Wars]]'' and ''[[Total Recall (2012 film)|Total Recall]]''. It presents some message underlying "[[climate change]]". Currently the once-in-a-lifetime adaptation of the [[Mortal Engines Quartet|novel series]] of the same name by [[Philip Reeve]] due to leftist narratives painting the film in a positive light.
|
|-
|''Movie 43''
|2013
|R
|Anthology of short "comedy" films which glamorize virtually every form of deviant sexuality imaginable. Much of the "humor" is scatological, including a scene with a character who enjoys being defecated upon. Aside from that, ''Movie 43'' is literally one of the worst motion pictures ever made in history, as it has nothing that would make it good, imaginative, funny, charming, or understandable of its existence at all. Won three Razzie awards: Worst Picture, Worst Director (all directors) and Worst Screenplay (all screenwriters).
|$32.4 million
|-
|''Mulholland Drive''
|2001
|R
|The makers of this nonsensical art film think homosexuality and fornication in general are "sexy" societal norms.
|$7,220,243
|-
|''My Own Private Idaho''
|1991
|R
|Two homosexual street hustlers begin having an affair while seeking adventure en route to Idaho and then Italy. One of the more infamous cinematic examples of the homosexual agenda.
|$6,401,336
|-
|''Natural Born Killers''
|1994
|R
|Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movie's main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as "heroes". Infamously known for influencing Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for committing the massacre at [[Columbine High School massacre]]<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-columbine-shooters/</ref>
|$50,282,766
|-
|''The Normal Heart''
|2014
|TV MA
|Another [[homosexual agenda|homosexual propaganda]] film that criticizes the [[Reagan Administration]] and general Conservative ideology. The LGBT community was a strong promoter of this film and insists it is "artful", when really it is decadent.
|N/A
|-
|''Nymphomaniac''
|2014
|NR
|This two-part movie features four hours of non-stop sex and glamorizes the lifestyle of the titular sex addict. It portrays other [[San Francisco values]], such as homosexuality and S&M, in a positive light. In general, this film was labeled as NSFW. Director, Lars von Trier, is known for being anti-American and slightly hints at this throughout the film.
|$17,584,083
|-
|''The Odd Life of Timothy Green''
|2012
|PG
|Despite an overly schmaltzy pro-family sentiment, this film showcases terrible parenting.
|$55.3 million
|-
|''One Sings, The Other Doesn't''
|1977
|Not Rated
|A disgusting French film that exists solely to promote abortion and normalize it as an essential part of being female.
|
|-
|''The Organizer''
|1963
|Not Rated
|This Italian film supports [[trade union]]s and [[infidelity]].
|
|-
|''Orgazmo''
|1997
|NC-17
|This pornographic nightmare celebrates the porn industry and criticizes [[Mormon]]s, if not all the world's religiously devout.
|$602,302
|-
|''Parasite''
|2019
|R
|This Korean film inexplicably won Best Picture at the Academy Awards even though it has a highly anti-capitalist message and portrays wealth as evil.
|$167,600,000
|-
|''Paul''
|2011
|R
|This extraterrestrial rescue mission could have been a harmless comedic tribute to the science fiction film genre if it didn't portray Christians and the military as close-minded idiots while depicting atheists (played by godless writers and co-stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) who support extramarital sex, homosexuality, and mind-altering drug use as the only "sensible" people. Pegg and Frost have explicitly stated that one of the movie's main messages is that "there is no God" and anyone who believes in Him is "an ignorant boob".
|$37,412,945
|-
|''The Perks of Being a Wallflower''
|2012
|PG-13
|Promotes homosexuality and also demonizes those opposed to a homosexual lifestyle.
|$17,738,570
|-
|''The People vs. Larry Flynt''
|1996
|R
|Idealizes [[pornography]] mogul [[Larry Flynt]] and claims that pornography is "protected" by the [[First Amendment]].
|$20,300,385
|-
|''Philadelphia''
|1993
|PG-13
|Homosexual agenda setting drama.
|$77,446,440
|-
|''Pineapple Express''
|2008
|R
|Shows [[drug abuse]] to be "cool".
|$87,341,380
|-
|''Pink Flamingos''
|1972
|NC-17
|Embraces horrifying people, who engage in such acts as [[incest]] and [[bestiality]], as well as promoting the homosexual agenda, since it stars transvestite Divine and shows homosexuals in a positive light. This film has toilet humor, finding it funny when a character (Divine) literally eats poo, and extremely offensive language, one character is even named after a racial slur against white people. Characters promote anarchy and violence as an everyday thing. A very graphic film, even for most liberals, showing close-ups of genitalia unlike any non-porno film. Liberals call it a "comedy", but it is revoltingly horrid and more like an act of [[Satan]].
|$7,000,000
|-
|''Project X''
|2012
|R
|Shows teen drinking, [[drug]] use, sex, vulgar profanity and anarchic behavior to be "cool".
|$54,731,865
|-
|''The Quick and the Dead''
|1995
|R
|A feminist western.
|$18,636,537
|-
|''Quills''
|2000
|R
|Portrays the Marquis de Sade as the protagonist, in addition to the prevalence of extremely violent acts.
|$11,732,088
|-
|''Resident Evil'' franchise
|2002-2017
|R
|Feminist film franchise with anti-capitalistic messages. Based on a video game franchise on the same name. The worst offender is ''Resident Evil: The Final Chapter'', where the villain is a [[Christian]] who releases a deadly virus (called the T-virus) which will destroy the human race and have him and rich colleagues rebuild the world in their image (a.k.a playing [[God]]).
|$244,443,938 (all together)
|-
|''Rise of the Planet of the Apes''
|2011
|PG-13
|Anti-business (the company the main character works for is painted in an extremely negative light), a lot of environmentalism throughout (including a more anti-human agenda being pushed), and the actor who played Caesar, Andy Serkis, as well as director Rupert Wyatt, both compared Caesar positively to the Marxist Argentinian revolutionary terrorist and mass murderer [[Che Guevara]].
|$481,801,049
|-
|''Rent''
|2005
|PG-13
|Promotes [[homosexuality]] and cross-dressing as "normal" lifestyles.
|$29,077,547
|-
|''Rock of Ages''
|2012
|PG-13 (Director's Cut is rated R)
|Based on the highly unoriginal and unimaginative Broadway musical, ''Rock of Ages'' features poor [[moral]]s, promotes homosexual agenda, prostitution, drug use, and drinking, and portrays conservatives in a negative, offensively bigoted viewpoint. Many gratuitous sex scenes and sexual references are prominently shown.
|$38,518,613
|-
|''Rocketman''
|2019
|R
|A biopic on [[Elton John]]. Mostly because of his influence, it has a gratuitous promotion of homosexuality and drug usage, and was particularly infamous for including an explicit sodomy scene.
|$195.2 million
|-
|''Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom''
|1975
|NR
|Adaptation of the [[sadist]] and [[Libertine]] and atheistic text by [[Marquis de Sade]] from Communist homosexual filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was killed shortly after completing this movie.
|
|-
|''Sex and the City''
|2008
|R
|Very disturbing film, much like its TV series counterpart, promoting the use of sex everywhere.
|$152,647,258.
|-
|''Sex Tape''
|2014
|R
|Anti-family. The main premise of the film was two nymphomaniacs trying to create a sex tape of themselves after getting kids killed their sex drive, and then recovering iPods that accidentally uploaded their tape online for everyone to see. The ending also has brief yet graphic sex scene showing what exactly was on the sex tape.
|$38,543,473
|-
|[[The Shack]]
|2017
|PG-13
|Based on the novel of the same name, this film promotes the ancient heresy of Patripassionism, presents God the Father contrarily to how he truly is according to scripture, and promotes the dangerous idea that God does not punish sin.<ref>https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Shack-review.html</ref>
|$96,942,115
|-
|''Shakespeare in Love''
|1998
|R
|Liberals changing history in order to suit feminists. The film also suggests that a woman was responsible for William Shakespeare's work (even though there's no record of this at all). Although it won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1998 (thanks to the aggressive campaign tactics of the egotistical producer Harvey Weinstein), the film has aged poorly and, to this day, the overwhelming majority of critics and film viewers believe that the conservative film and Steven Spielberg's masterpiece ''Saving Private Ryan'' should have won instead.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrNphaLsDs</ref>
|$100,317,794 
|-
|''The Shape of Water''
|2017
|R
|Disgusting pro-Bestiality and Feminist movie directed by Marxist film director Guillermo del Toro. Also encourages homosexuality and has hints of promoting illegal immigration.
|$54,185,844
|-
|''She Hate Me''
|2004
|R
|Taking jabs at capitalism and supporting the [[homosexual agenda]], this film has a very over the top plot were a man who's laid off from his job for exposing corrupt business practices, turns to impregnating wealthy lesbians for profit. (This really is the plot).
|$366,037
|-
|''Sixteen Candles''
|1984
|PG (Would be PG-13 today).
|Glorfies teenage sex, underage drinking, and cigarette smoking
|$23,686,027
|-
|''Small Soldiers''
|1998
|PG-13
|Anti-military (due to the Commando Elite being depicted in a negative manner, and to a certain extent GloboTech, the ones responsible for the bad events in the film, being stated to be a Defense Contractor) and also anti-Capitalist (due to GloboTech being the ones responsible for the events of the film, including buying out the Heartland Toy Company.).
|$71.1 million
|-
|''The Social Network''
|2010
|PG-13
|Glorifies the [[gossip]] website [[Facebook]], which feeds [[narcissism]] and destroys marriages. The film also portrays drug use and [[misogyny]] in a positive light.
|$96,962,694
|-
|''Spring Breakers''
|2012
|R
|From the creator of ''Kids'', this film is similar in its pornographic nature and glamorization of drug abuse, only this film takes it to a new extreme. Furthermore, this film promotes [[feminism]] and glamorizes the gangster/[[ghetto]] [[rap music]] lifestyle, while condemning Christians, labeling them as "weak" and "insecure". Also, the film contains a full-on sex scene in the pool, and show nudity, in not only that scene but several others.
|$31,724,284
|-
|''Star Trek Beyond''
|2016
|PG-13
|The film has [[Sulu|Hikaru Sulu]] as a "married" homosexual with an adopted daughter, which was a decision that even [[George Takei]] (Sulu's original actor and a prominent homosexual activist) took issue with.<ref>http://time.com/4398071/george-takei-simon-pegg-sulu-gay-star-trek-beyond/</ref>
|$343.5 million
|-
|''The Stepford Wives''
|1975
|R
|[[Feminist]] [[polemic]]. Ends with the protagonist beating her husband with an iron fireplace poker. The film's release coincided with the height of the [[ERA]] movement.
|$4 million
|-
|''Stonewall''
|2015
|R
|Based on the 1969 Stonewall Riots, this film is a pro-homosexual film that pushes the homosexual agenda. It's rather ironic to note that the film, itself, is a victim of historical revisionism, offensive racial stereotypes, and exclusion of the representation of minorities. While the filmmakers tried to defend their artistic decisions, the film was overwhelmingly criticized by critics and audiences (even liberals, not surprisingly, hated the film) and failed to make its play for awards consideration during the 2015 Oscar season.
|$187,674
|-
|''Straight Outta Compton''
|2015
|R
|Glorifies the gangster lifestyle and gangster rap, and portrays the police as racist, along with other anti-police aspects.
|$161,197,785
|-
|''Superbad''
|2007
|R
|Promotes the teenage use of drugs, smoking, alcohol and sex. The whole point of the movie is for a couple of guys to lose their virginity. The movie contains many uses of profanity, underage drinking, and drug use.
|$121,463,226
|-
|''Taking Woodstock''
|2009
|R
|Glorifies the anarchistic and chaotic Woodstock festival in 1969 as well as the Hippie Movement, painting their various lewd actions, including homosexuality, in a positive light. Also has some elements of anti-Semitism due to the main character's parents who acted as Holocaust survivors being portrayed in an unsympathetic light.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2009/08/28/taking-woodstock-mythologizing-the-worst-generation/</ref>
|$10 million
|-
|''Tammy''
|2014
|R
|Movie about a lazy unemployed woman who after losing her job, basically turns to a life of crime. As the film is about her and her grandma hitting the road, committing robberies, doing illegal prescription drugs, and buying beers for teenagers. They have a Fourth of July party with no typical festivities, and is more like a drunken sex party, as the grandma reveals her breasts to the guest (the audience does not see them though).
|$84,525,432
|-
|''Tank Girl''
|1995
|R
|Based on the left-wing comic, this film glorifies feminism and debauchery while making the capitalists the bad guys.
|$4,064,495
|-
|''Thank You For Smoking''
|2006
|R
|The title is self-exploratory, depicts cigarette endorsers as heroes.
|$24,793,509
|-
|''That's My Boy''
|2012
|R (originally NC-17)
|Depsite staring conservative actor Adams Sandler this films depicts pedophilia, statutory rape, gerontophilia, child neglect, incest, and other forms of aberrant sexuality as "funny".
|$57.7 million
|-
|''There's Something About Mary''
|1998
|R
|Contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions.
|$176,484,651
|-
|''To Find a Man''
|1972
|
|Pretty much a 90-minute abortion propaganda film.
|
|-
|''Trash H*****s''
|2010
|NR
|Shows decadent behavior in a positive light and glamorizes sexual deviancy. Also the film is riddled with profanity, even the title has a naughty word (which was censored here).
|
|-
|''Uncle Sam''
|1996
|R
|Depicts the heroes as a jaded amputated war veteran and a draft dodger, and the main villain as an extremely sociopathic soldier who joined the Army to kill as many people as he wanted, and the latter is depicted as being hyper-patriotic.
|$2,000,000
|-
|''Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)''
|2007
|PG-13
|Baselessly supports illegal immigration despite a pro-family sentiment.
|$23,311,391
|-
|''Up In Smoke''
|1978
|R
|Stoner film that just promotes the use of smoking marijuana.
|$44,364,244
|-
|''Waterworld''
|1995
|PG-13
|Suggests that "[[global warming]]" was real, and the Earth has now become a flooded post-apocalyptic wasteland.
|$88,246,220
|-
|''The Wolf of Wall Street''
|2013
|R
|Blatantly promotes excessive, endless drug use, portraying it in a positive light, and claiming that illegal drugs such as [[heroin]] give people the will to keep working hard and stay focused and positive, as well as various forms of graphic and illicit sexual activity and voyeurism, (both heterosexual and in one scene, homosexual) and non-stop use of the f-word and hundreds of other profanities throughout. Portrays capitalists on [[Wall Street]] as greedy self-absorbed criminals obsessed with sex, drugs and violence in the form of the protagonist Jordan Belfort. Many audiences were shocked that this did not receive an NC-17 rating upon its release, especially since morality-deprived director [[Martin Scorsese]] broke the ''[[South Park]]'' movie's record for most uses of the F-word with his film. Christina McDowell, the daughter of Tom Prousalis, one of the people involved in Belfort's crimes, wrote a memoir on the subject specifically to call out Scorsese and DiCaprio for failing to recognize the victims of Belfort in the film, something even the most praiseworthy critics of the film admitted was a flaw.
|$116,900,694
|-
|''A Wrinkle in Time''
|2018
|PG
|A live action adaptation of the book of the same name by Disney, the film managed to completely cut out many references to Jesus Christ and biblical verses, as well as completely altered the joyous singing to remove any reference to God.<ref>https://pjmedia.com/faith/disneys-wrinkle-time-erases-books-bible-quotes-cuts-jesus-christian-figures-history/</ref> Needless to say, it opened to a box office bomb.<ref>https://movieweb.com/a-wrinkle-in-time-movie-review-2018/</ref>
|$132.6 million
|-
|''W.R.: Mystery of the Organism''
|1971
|NR
|Essentially a plotless film riddled with disgusting orgies.
|
|-
|''Whatever Works''
|2009
|PG-13
|A promotion of liberal values including homosexuality, nihilism, and various forms of sexual deviancy such as May-December Romances, misanthropy, and promiscuity, and also implies that even those with the strongest faith in Christianity and conservative have it vanish in an instant upon setting foot in New York City.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2009/07/16/whatever-works-doesnt/</ref> Also notable as Woody Allen overtly pushing nihilism and complete selfishness as an absolute positive, in stark contrast to past films where he at least depicted some negative consequences to selfish behavior.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2009/07/03/Review--Whatever-Works/</ref>
|$35.1 million<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=whateverworks.htm</ref>
|-
|''X-Men'' franchise
|2000-2019
|PG-13 (R for Deadpool & Deadpool 2)
|Unlike the comics they're based on (which were about civil rights)<ref>https://www.nuskool.com/learn/lesson/mlk-and-malcolm-x-the-civil-rights-movement-and-the-x-men-origins/</ref> liberals used this movie franchise to further the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T543J2L-gXU</ref><ref>http://www.cracked.com/article_20497_5-great-movies-with-mind-blowing-symbolism-you-didnt-notice.html</ref> Bryan Singer director of four of the films (whom is also homosexual) was also cited for sexual assault of a minor.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/media/in-lawsuit-director-of-new-x-men-film-is-accused-of-sexual-assault.html?rref=homepage&_r=0</ref> And the sexual abuse has continued to this day especially with the various similar scandals that came out in Hollywood starting with Harvey Weinstein.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/11/08/usc-taking-student-petition-remove-bryan-singers-name-cinema-school-seriously/</ref> Likewise, it was noted that Singer during filming for the first movie did not allow for the comics to be on the set, despite the film being based on them.<ref>http://fourcolormedmon.blogspot.com/2017/11/3-filmmakers-working-on-comics-projects.html</ref> It was also anti-Military, especially in the second film and to some extent X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as the main villain, William Stryker, was the head of a para-military group and depicted as very genocidal against mutants, and was also implied to be a Vietnam War veteran. This had been added in by screenwriter David Hayter, due to his experiences with the ''[[Metal Gear Solid]]'' series.
|$1,817,894,919 (all together)
|-
|}

==Animated films==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''Alpha and Omega''
|2010
|PG
|This animated film about wolves promotes disorderly conduct based on the zany antics of an omega wolf named Humphrey. It can be seen as pro-environmentalist as well because some members of the wolf pack try to start eating berries as opposed to caribou, despite wolves being natural carnivores. Alpha wolves are painted in an elitist light for being determined and hard workers. One female wolf named Kate can be described as a modern feminist. Similarly to the other liberal film, ''Open Season'', it spawned multiple unneeded direct-to-video sequels. It is also somewhat comparable to the other liberal film called ''Barnyard: The Original Party Animals'', only in that movie's case, it had a subsequent television series called ''Back at the Barnyard'' as opposed to film sequels.
|$25,107,267
|-
|''Alpha and Omega'' sequels
|2013-2017
|PG
|These direct-to-video sequels follow the characters from the first ''Alpha and Omega'' movie, along with showing themes from that film. The sequels encourage disobedient behavior, for the pups of Kate and Humphrey often ignore their parents telling them to stay at home; they even try justifying this by telling their parents in the sixth movie that they get into "situations" by being told to be kind and caring. An instance of racism is shown in the fifth film by three porcupines being told to be friends because they look alike.
|N/A (Direct to Video)
|-
|''Animals United'' (Konferenz der Tiere in German)
|2010
|PG
|A meerkat and a vegetarian lion journey with other animals from around the world (a polar bear, two tortoises, a kangaroo, a Tasmanian devil, and a rooster) to take down a dam built by humans, which had caused the Okavango Delta to dry up. This movie promotes a heavy environmentalist message, with the animals saying that all humans are causing bad things to happen all around the world (like a polar bear's snowy home to melt and the Outback to catch on fire). At the end of the movie, many animals start storming the cities, even news reporters saying that the animals are going to make the humans pay for ruining the world.
|£2,133,051
|-
|''The Ant Bully''
|2006
|PG
|This pro-Communist film's main message of the power of the individual to be more powerful than one another is a bad thing. The exterminator, apparently the main antagonist, is vilified for simply doing his job, thus giving the animation an environmentalist message.
|$28,142,535
|-
|''Astro Boy''
|2009
|PG
|Based loosely on the 1952 manga and 1963 anime, liberal producers and writers twisted the cartoon to fit their [[Communist]] agenda.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Jqlxd7ufM</ref> This strategy backfired, however, and the film was a critical failure.<ref>http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/astro-boys-abysmal-opening-and-imagis-sinking-ship-17586.html</ref>
|$19,551,067
|-
|''Barnyard: The Original Party Animals''
|2006
|PG
|Set on a barnyard where animals speak and behave like humans in the absence of real humans, this ''Lion King'' clone stars a bull who witnesses his father die after being wounded by coyotes, then gradually accepts the responsibilities that come with being the leader of his animal community. Nevertheless, ''Barnyard'' accepts disorderly conduct because the animals still party recklessly, even with a serious, dedicated bull in charge. Plus, it portrays humans as either ignorant or stupid and persecutes coyotes for being carnivores. The neurotic ferret Freddy goes to liberal lengths to avoid temptation to eat his rooster friend by becoming a [[vegetarianism|vegetarian]]. Not only that, but the bulls lack horns and have female udders, and there are brief scenes referencing alcohol and gambling.
|$116,500,000
|-
|''Battle for Terra''
|2007
|PG
|This animation has environmentalist overtones and portrays a Bible-quoting, American-esque military general as the main antagonist.
|$1,647,083
|-
|''Brave''
|2012
|PG
|One of Pixar's less memorable animations stars Merida, a feminist Medieval Scottish princess who refuses to marry, believing it will cause her to lose her life of archery and adventure, thus demonstrating poor family values throughout. Of course, because this is a feminist propaganda piece, the men in the film are oafish compared to the women, too. Egregiously, Merida was added to the Disney Princess lineup regardless of the poor morals she demonstrates throughout the film and being created by Pixar, not by Disney directly. Also has a smiliar setting to Great Conservative Film; How to Train Your Dragon which was released two year before.
|$540.4 million
|-
|''Cars 2''
|2011
|G
|This Pixar sequel demonizes oil companies while aggrandizing ethanol (mentioned as Allinall). On the film's political agenda, director John Lasseter commented: "Why isn't alternative fuel more... Why isn't everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There's ethanol. There's all this stuff you could be doing. And so I thought, well, that could be really cool in that you could have big oil versus alternative fuel. That's when we kind of crafted the bad guy's story."
|$191,450,875
|-
|''Chicken Little''
|2005
|G
|This painfully unoriginal animation, which was adapted from a 1943 World War II propaganda short by conservative filmmaker Walt Disney (which was itself adapted from one of Aesop's fables), ridicules family values, especially when the title chicken's widower father, Buck "Ace" Cluck, is shown to be willing to disown his son. Later on, when the aliens proceed to attempt to invade and detonate Earth, it is simply because they thought it is a living organism that kidnapped one of their children. The film is borderline nihilistic because the townspeople are mean-spirited and frequently bully Chicken Little, and a brief gag implies that warping someone's mind against their will is acceptable. As one of the worst theatrical productions ever made by the Walt Disney Company under [[Michael Eisner]], the film's mean-spirited and deeply cynical plot line is suspected to have been done to compete with [[DreamWorks]] animated films helmed by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]].
|$135,386,665
|-
|''Delhi Safari''
|2012
|PG
|A leopard cub and his mother in India join a gang of animals (a bear, a monkey, and a pet parrot) in their journey to Delhi to make the humans stop destroying their homes. This movie is very environmentalist, examples being the parrot Alex pleading with the humans to "share the world" with the animals, which results in laws of environmentalism being passed and apartment buildings being cancelled.
|$3.10 million
|-
|''Delgo''
|2008
|PG
|This pagan film has horrible scenes of violence, war, and mass murder. It performed so horribly at the box office that it was criticized for potentially traumatizing young children and was pulled from theaters after a week. It is currently the lowest-grossing computer animated film of all time.
|$694,782
|-
|''The Emoji Movie''
|2017
|PG (Should be PG-13 for multiple references to the dreaded S-word in profanity)
|Not only is this film clearly an infomercial for various smartphone applications and features thinly disguised as an unoriginal take on the "hero's journey" story archetype, but it appears to devalue human language: the main teenager Alex can only win over his crush by communicating via text messages comprised exclusively of emojis, and a background teenager even says, "Words aren't cool". Openly homosexual writer and director Anthony "Tony" Leondis considers the movie a deeply personal project for him: the main character is a sentient emoji who is different from his friends with his ability to show multiple expressions, which reflects Leondis' laughable belief that he is an outcast when, in reality, Hollywood praises that sort of sinful sexuality. The film briefly glorifies [[Facebook]], the world's largest social network and a hotbed for narcissism and relationship destruction; gives minor lip service to feminism in the form of Jailbreak, a computer hacker girl emoji who refuses to be the princess emoji she was created to be; and has been unfavorably compared to ''Wreck-It Ralph'' and ''Inside Out'', two great conservative animations, plus the ambiguously conservative ''LEGO Movie''.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydvQB-4bBfQ</ref> Worst of all, TJ Miller, who voices the lead emoji, once said the film is a subtle protest against [[Donald Trump]] based on allegations that Trump wants to censor Hollywood and other liberally biased media.
|$25,650,000
|-
|''FernGully: The Last Rainforest''
|1992
|G
|Environmental [[propaganda]], with an anti-industry message, is indoctrinated into children.
|$24,650,296
|-
|''Food Fight''
|2012
|PG
|Aside from being considered one of the worst computer animated films, the film vilifies capitalism and leading companies.
|N/A
|-
|''Free Birds''
|2013
|PG
|This animated film's main premise is about taking turkey off of the Thanksgiving menu.
|$55,750,480
|-
|''Gnomeo and Juliet''
|2011
|PG
|This disturbing love story contains a joke that could be interpreted as passing off bestiality (in this case, with a garden gnome, which is normally an ''inanimate object'') as funny.
|$194 million
|-
|''Happy Feet''
|2006
|PG
|This environmentalist film pushes the envelope to some extent with sexual humor and implied persecution against Christians.<ref name="6 Kids Films Filled with Green Propaganda">https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/3/22/6-kids-films-filled-with-green-propaganda/2/</ref>
|$198,000,317
|-
|''Happy Feet 2''
|2011
|PG
|Like the first ''Happy Feet'', it does not push the envelope too much as far as sexual humor goes, but it goes even further with themes of environmentalism as it pushes the global warming agenda. Staunch liberal actors Matt Damon and Brad Pitt voice two krill who are implied to be homosexual.<ref name="6 Kids Films Filled with Green Propaganda" />
|$64,006,466
|-
|''Home''
|2015
|PG
|Contains environmental, illegal immigration messages, and somewhat supports the homosexual agenda as well.
|$177,397,510
|-
|''The Hunchback of Notre Dame''
|1996
|G
|Released during liberal maniac [[Michael Eisner]]'s reign of terror at Disney, the film does everything in its power to persecute Christians. The original source material was not intended for children, yet the Disney film was marketed as such to young audiences. In some cases, the film actually manages to be even darker than the original book by Victor Hugo: originally, Quasimodo's vicious punishment at the hands of the Parisians during the Feast of Fools ceremony was out of corporal punishment; while in the Disney film, it had been done at the whim of the Parisians just for the sake of it. To make the film even darker, a gypsy genocide plot is introduced, and Paris was also the victim of arson late into the film. This is a stark contrast to most other Disney film adaptations, which have a history of toning down the original works (as in ''The Jungle Book'', in which Disney advised the writers to ignore the book specifically because its contents were unsuitable for children). Even worse, the DVD commentary for the film boasted that they deliberately had the villain, Judge Claude Frollo, when symbolically falling to hell in "Hellfire", assuming the pose of the crucifix.<ref>DVD Commentary: "Here's some more of our ham-fisted symbolism--Frollo falls down in the shape of a crucifix!"</ref> Some mild language is present, too (namely the word "damnation" and "eternal damnation"). Worst of all, one of the male gargoyles falls in love with Djali, who is explicitly male, which means that liberals will subtly shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even the gargoyles of Notre Dame. There is also a bit of forced diversity in the movie as well, as Esmerelda is altered to be a full Gypsy by birth (in the original book, she was in fact ethnically French, the daughter of a French anchoress, and had been abducted by gypsies and raised by them).
|$100,138,851
|-
|The Legend of Frosty the Snowman
|2005
|Not Rated
|This film is a bastardization of the original [[Frosty the Snowman]] special in which it retcons almost everything to push an anti-comformity message and presents youth rebellion in a positive light.
|
|-
|''The Legend of the Titanic''
|1999
|Not Rated
|This animation bastardizes a horrific, tragic historical event in the name of making a statement against the whaling industry.
|
|-
|''Mars Needs Moms''
|2011
|PG
|A 9-year-old boy named Milo defies his mother, behaves in disorderly conduct, and is somewhat [[Nihilist|nihilistic]]. Family values are poked fun at. It also has a brief scene poking fun at the great conservative leader, [[Ronald Reagan]].
|$39 million
|-
|''My Little Pony: The Movie''
|2017
|G
|Based on the bad [[anime]]-influenced liberal television series ''My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic'', this unnecessary film has the same liberal messages, relating to witchcraft, feminism, socialism, and environmentalism.
|$21,885,107
|-
|''Norm of the North''
|2016
|PG
|This poorly-received animation makes an environmentalist polar bear the hero and vilifies major businesses in the form of a greedy real estate mogul in a possible jab at Donald Trump. Three sequels promoting the same environmental message have been released since 2019.
|$24.8 million
|-
|''The Nut Job''
|2014
|PG
|An incorrigibly self-serving exiled squirrel finds himself helping his former park creatures survive by raiding a nut store, which celebrates disorderly conduct, nonconformity, and environmentalism. One of the antagonists is a head businessman because he does not comply with environmentalism.
|$64,251,541
|-
|''The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature''
|2017
|PG
|In the sequel to ''The Nut Job'', the businessman villain returns to try to build an amusement park, again persecuted for not being an environmentalist.
|$26,989,904 (Still in Theaters)
|-
|''Open Season''
|2006
|PG
|Although conservative star Gary Sinise appears, environmentalism and hate speech against hunters runs rampant.
|$85,105,259
|-
|''Over the Hedge''
|2006
|PG
|Based upon the comic strip of the same name, animals who are struggling to steal food from trash for the winter are the heroes, while humans are painted as ignorant, uncaring towards animals (clearly an environmentalist message), and obsessed with food. Plus, a businesswoman is the main antagonist, and an exterminator is scorned for simply doing his job. In addition, one of the other main antagonists of the film (and the only animal main antagonist), Vincent the Bear, is villainized for forcing RJ the Raccoon to replace the food he had after the latter in a botched attempt to steal food that Vincent had hoarded for the winter ended up accidentally destroying the food stash, with an ad-libbed scene in the climax having Vincent admit that he got where he was by "backstabbing, betraying, and murdering" those that placed trust in him, which can be interpreted as a dig against Capitalism and the concept of private property.
|$155,019,340
|-
|''ParaNorman''
|2012
|PG
|The very ending of the film pulls a swerve and reveals that one of the characters, Mitch Downe, as being homosexual, ignoring the fact that he was not even implied to be that earlier. This decision had been made by the director Chris Butler.
|$107.1 million
|-
|''Peter Rabbit''
|2018
|G
|The movie was a complete trashing of the popular British children's book series of the same name, promoting environmentalism by having the rightful owner of the farm, Thomas MacGregor, be vilified simply for trying to farm the vegetable garden that legally belonged to him, and the various farm animals being portrayed positively in interfering with his business, with one of their plans against MacGregor even going so far as to have Peter Rabbit murder him by exploiting a food allergy that he had and it is treated in a positive manner. It was such that even the liberal website [[TV Tropes]] grudgingly acknowledged under the articles "Unintentionally Sympathetic" and "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" that Thomas was closer to being in the right than Peter and his friends were.
|$146,983,492
|-
|''Pocahontas''
|1995
|G
|This feminist story follows a highly fictionalized account of the life of [[Native American]] [[Pocahontas]] with an environmental message; and the Native American’s view against English settlers is similar to Howard Zinn's revisionist history textbook ''A People's History of the United States'', which would entered public knowledge and provided to universities, colleges, and high schools across America two years later (see ''Good Will Hunting''). The titular character enters what is implied to be an unfaithful relationship with John Smith over fellow Native American Kokoum, and her decision is treated in a comparatively positive light; while the English settlers are vilified simply for establishing the early American colonies to find Jamestown, and John Ratcliffe in particular was demonized as having the motive of trying to establish a gold mine and being greedy, despite gold never being the motive for Ratcliffe, which could be interpreted as a dig against capitalism. Following the Best Picture nomination of ''Beauty and the Beast'' at the 64th Academy Awards and its subsequent loss in March 1992, then-studio chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg opted to produce another animated sweeping romantic epic in hopes of achieving a cinematic masterpiece status and replicating another Best Picture nomination, even if he intended to distort history and add both a love story and environmental themes. In fact, many people at Disney had high hopes for ''Pocahontas'', while deeming the concept of another film in production, ''The Lion King'' as experimental. To their surprise, ''The Lion King'' became one of the greatest animated motion pictures of all time, while ''Pocahontas'' received mixed critical reviews and below-than-expected box office receipts.
|$141,579,773
|-
|''Pokémon: Zoroark - Master of Illusions''
|2010 (Japan); 2011 (America)
|G
|The anime film's villain is a successful businessman, which is a statement against capitalism, and one of the main protagonists of the film, Karl (perhaps named for [[Karl Marx]]), is based on the radical left-wing schlockumentarian Michael Moore.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20130122121711/http://www.gamefreak.co.jp/blog/art/wp-content/images/1008/kuruto.jpg</ref>
|
|-
|''Princess Mononoke''
|1997
|PG-13
|Environmentalist, feminist anime film on on steroids, where the forest gods are at war with a mining colony (whom are portrayed as the "bad guys").
|$2,375,308
|-
|''Quest for Camelot''
|1998
|G
|This revisionist take on Arthurian legend throws everything that makes the source material great (Christianity, heroism, bravery, etc.) out the window for the sake of advocating feminism and wanting to be as worthy a Disney animated musical film (Its from Warner Bros), only to be panned by critics in the end. Even though it's suppose to a G-rated family comedy, an incest joke appears as well.<ref>https://www.imdb.com/character/ch0100869/quotes</ref>
|$22,510,798
|-
|''Sausage Party''
|2016
|R
|As the first R-rated American animated film to be released by a major film studio in the United States following 1999's ''South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut'', ''Sausage Party'' blatantly criticizes religion and deceives audiences into think that, without religion and the existence of God, everyone can enjoy the most selfish, crude, and debauched activities (e.g. humanism, homosexuality, obscenity, and non-stop sexual intercourse) without guilt or a sense of a "religious obligation". Made by Nitrogen Studios. A typical offensive and raunchy comedy film by modern Hollywood standards, directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan, producer Megan Ellison, producer/writer Evan Goldberg, and producer/writer/actor Seth Rogen (all of them fiercely liberal and some, ironically, of Jewish origin) made this film to bastardize the animation genre, as well as to push the liberal Hollywood agenda on politics and religion. Animated feature films, for the past century, have enthralled and enhanced audiences around the world, as the best ones tell timely stories that children, teenagers, and adults alike can relate to and enjoy. The makers of ''Sausage Party'' seemed to not care about any of this, as they made this untimely film strictly for adults, as they believed that there aren't and should be any animated films for adults only to enjoy. Their warped belief is made very clear by the film's criticism and parody of many other animated films (namely Disney animations) as well as the presence of regular Disney collaborator Alan Menken as the film's songwriter. Altogether, ''Sausage Party'' is painfully unfunny and has virtually no plot or philosophical merit. Upon release, only liberally biased film critics praised the film, while general audiences were repulsed by it.

On a side note, ''Sausage Party'' has attracted a great deal of criticism on two additional issues. First, the animators worked under poor, cruel conditions and were forced by the directors to work overtime without pay. Thirty-six of the 83 animators were blacklisted and went uncredited in the film, believed to be due to their complaints; comments made in anonymous interviews of some of the animators involved in the project by ''Variety'', ''The Washington Post'', and ''The Hollywood Reporter'' alleged that the comments were accurate. All the animators in the film were told outright that they would be blacklisted if they did not work overtime without pay. Second, a red-band trailer for the film was accidentally played before a showing of the Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios' PG-rated and family-oriented ''Finding Dory'', at a Concord, California multiplex in mid-June 2016.<ref>http://ew.com/article/2016/06/29/theater-plays-sausage-party-trailer-before-finding-dory-apologizes/</ref> The theater staff had forgotten to switch out an adult-audience trailer roll for one meant for G and PG-rated films, when adding additional screens to carry ''Finding Dory'' to meet audience demand. The incident occurred only once, and the theater apologized, while Rogen [[Twitter|tweeted]] that the story "made his day".
|$89,645,124
|-
|''The Secret World of Arrietty''
|2010
|G
|Japanese anime film is about a tiny homeless family that steals from regular people. Demonizes capitalism and promotes redistribution of wealth.
|$19,202,743
|-
|''[[Shark Tale]]''
|2004
|PG
|Promotes multiculturalism and the deuteragonist of the film is a great white shark who is a vegetarian. Besides for being pro-vegan it is also a metaphor for being homosexual.<ref>http://gaylife.about.com/od/moviestheatre/a/sharktale.htm</ref>
|$160,861,908
|-
|''Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairytale''
|2012
|N/A
|An animated film written by [[Fred Glass]], narrated by [[Ed Asner]], and made for the California Federation of Teachers. It repeated rhetoric made by the [[Occupy Wall Street]] group about taxing the rich to have "their fair share" and demonized Capitalism in various ways, including blaming it on Asian sweatshops as well as the housing bubble bursting in 2008. [[Kirsten Powers]], a member of [[The Daily Beast]], and herself no stranger to liberal politics, acknowledged alongside conservative economist for ''The Daily Caller'' Tucker Carson on the Sean Hannity show that the cartoon was simply inexcusable and disgusting, with Sean Hannity also explicitly referring to it as a "disgusting hit piece".<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sean-hannity-slams-ed-asner-398102</ref><ref>http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121206006-ca-union-class.html</ref> The film was particularly infamous for a scene where, in a segment covering the trickle-down effect, a corpulent rich man representing the 1% of wealthy Americans, after having the scales literally stacked up in his favor regarding money, upon being asked why the 1% needed so much money, he responded "Don't worry, this is good for you too, it will trickle down from us to you", with the latter statement being accompanied with a graphic of the rich man proceeding to urinate on the other ordinary people as they yell in protest. Although later versions freeze the footage just before the man pees on the crowd in response to the complaints about the scene, it was still implied by residual audio of the urine stream. Sean Hannety and Michelle Malkin of the Sean Hannety Show both expressed disgust with the video when covering it, and when one of the producers confronted Ed Asner as the latter was about to attend one of his roles at a play, the latter falsely claimed he didn't remember what he said on it, and also claimed that the bit about rich people peeing on poor people was disgusting only because it should have been in reverse, and then asked the producer if he had any money, and if so, if he should "p*** on [the producer]."<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr1ZzsAzq_M</ref>
|N/A
|-
|''Tentacolino'' (AKA ''In Search of the Titanic'')
|2004
|Not Rated
|The notorious sequel to ''The Legend of the Titanic'' stars the characters of the first movie trying to find the sunken [[RMS Titanic]] only to be taken to the mythical city of Atlantis. This North Korean film paints being held prisoner in a positive light, for the king of Atlantis forces the main characters to stay in Atlantis forever, and Don Juan even willingly submits to being taken prisoner. It also shows disrespect towards the tragedy of the Titanic by referring to the Titanic as "mythical". Family values are even tossed aside where the main characters are more concerned about seeing Atlantis again than their families back home.
|€4,000,000
|-
|''A Troll in Central Park''
|1994
|G
|Considered by many to be Don Bluth's worst film, the movie stars a troll named Stanley exiled from the Land of Trolls and ends up in Central Park, meeting two children. The end of the movie has an environmental message when Stanley causes plants to grow all over the city, potentially causing trouble for people in New York City.
|$71,368
|-
|}

==Schlockumentaries==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[The 11th Hour]]''
|2007
|PG
|This environmental schlockumentary produced and narrated by actor [[Leonardo DiCaprio]] endorses the theory of [[Anthropogenic global warming]].
|$707,343
|-
|Almost any film directed by [[Michael Moore]]
|
|
|All of his "documentaries" are composed of left-wing propaganda, promoting concepts such as universal health care, socialism, anti-Capitalist views, and gun control, and if that's not enough, he blatantly skews facts to push his agenda.
|
|-
|''American Factory''
|2019
|
|Don't let the title fool you into thinking it is patriotic. It covers the Chinese takeover of a GM plant as well as socialism in a positive light, and was made by the production company that the Obamas formed. The documentary gained additional notoriety when one of the producers of the film, Julia Reichert, quoted Karl Marx during her acceptance speech.<ref>https://us24news.com/blog/2020/02/10/oscars-go-communist-winning-producer-quotes-karl-marx-and-obama-praises-her/</ref>
|
|-
|''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]''
|2006
|PG
|[[Al Gore]]'s [[global warming]] alarmist [[schlockumentary]].
|$24,146,161
|-
|''An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power''
|2017
|PG
|Unanswered sequel to Al Gore's 2006 schlockumentary, ''An Inconvenient Truth''.
|
|-
|''Arctic Tale''
|2007
|G
|A documentary film geared towards children that pushes the false narrative of global warming and polar bears going extinct from melting ice caps.
|$1,858,064
|-
|''Better This World''
|2011
|Not Rated
|2011 documentary "feature length lie" is a [[PBS]] film regarding the thwarted domestic terrorist attack at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]] and liberals attempt to re-write history.
|NA-TV
|-
|''Blackfish''
|2013
|PG-13
|A [[CNN]] documentary film about the captivity of Tilikum, an orca involved in the deaths of three individuals, and the consequences of keeping orcas in captivity, that is nothing but a propaganda film full of so many lies.<ref>https://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/</ref> The film gained high ratings on movie review websites, making it seem the film brainwashes critics.
|$2,073,582
|-
|''[[Bowling for Columbine]]''
|2002
|R
|A 2002 schlockumentary directed by and starring [[leftist]] propagandist Michael Moore. It is a pro-[[gun control]] film and distorts facts in favor of gun-grabbing. Also included a "Brief history of the USA" segment using animation mirroring that of [[South Park]], that distorted historical facts to make it seem as though guns were implemented by racists, which actually led to the South Park [[libertarian]] creators to condemn him, enough to give Moore a cameo in Team America as a suicide bomber and make his death especially graphic.
|$21,576,018
|-
|Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey
|2014
|TV-PG
|Darwinism and global warming alarmism are disguised as science.
|N/A
|-
|''Fahrenheit 11/9''
|2018
|R
| [[Donald Trump]] hit piece by none other than Michael Moore. Trump got the last laugh as it ended up flopping at the box office <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2HyTh_6iyA</ref>
|-
|''The God Who Wasn't There'
|2005
|NR
|This documentary by noted skeptic [[Brian Flemming]] attempts to reinforce the massive wave of atheist propaganda from the internet.
|
|-
|''[[Jesus Camp]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|This baseless attack on conservative Christianity later incited [[liberal vandalism]] of the Bible camp shown in the film.
|$902,544
|-
|''Hail Satan''
|2019
|R
|Attempts to "humanize" followers of [[The Satanic Temple]] and literal [[satanism]], specifically depicting them as they try to get their monuments to [[Satan]] on government property and push their evil ideology on children, all while vilifying Christian values and portraying Conservative activists like Jason Rapert, an Arkansas State Senator who successfully got a monument of the [[10 Commandments]] erected in front of the Arkansas State Capitol building, as un-patriotic bigots.
|
|-
|''Hearts and Minds''
|1974
|Not Rated
|A documentary about the Vietnam War that was inherently anti-American in its nature. Also, depicts [[Catholic]]s as bigots. It also had a brief clip at the beginning which had the rolling crew having one of the higher officers forced to talk to them with the false promise that they'd burn the tape once he is finished with it. It also has several moments of graphic sex between soldiers and Vietnamese prostitutes. It also implies throughout the film that several atrocities conducted by the North Vietnamese communists were done by Americans, including the footage where a girl ends up burned by [[napalm]] and running out naked. Noteworthy for being almost single-handedly responsible for forcing America out of Vietnam (even having the NVA mailing the producers thanking them for "ensuring peace" in Vietnam) as well as it being an influence for far-left schlockumentarist/propagandist Michael Moore, with some of its filming techniques even being reused for ''Farenheit 9/11''.
|Unknown
|-
|''Inside Job''
|2010
|PG-13
|Democrat donor Charles Ferguson blames the Great Recession of 2008 on Wall Street, unspecified deregulations, the Bush Administration, and so on. He whitewashes [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]]'s role and virtually eschews any mention of the Community Reinvestment Act. While advertised as nonpartisan, it contains various interviews with Democratic politicians but none with Republican politicians. Finally, Ferguson blames the financial system for corrupting American politics.
|$4,312,735
|-
|''[[Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup]]''
|2009
|
|[[Truthers]] Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe blame America for [[9/11]]. Conspiracy Theorist [[Alex Jones]] worked as Executive Producer (and don't let his paleoconservative/libertarian views fool you into thinking it is in any way a conservative documentary).
|Unknown
|-
|''Lost in Tel Aviv''
|2008
|Not Rated
|A couple strives to make a filthy, [[South Park]]-esque animated series.
|Unknown
|-
|''Makers: Women who Make America''
|2013-2014
|Unrated
|A documentary glorifying [[Feminism]], in particular, the faction that started with [[Betty Friedan]]'s ''The Second Sex''. Also features as examples of role models and pioneers of feminism such degenerates as [[Lena Dunham]] (creator of the liberal TV series ''Girls''), Linda Woolverton, [[Hillary Clinton]], [[Ellen DeGeneres]], [[Jane Fonda]], and [[Gloria Allred]]. On top of that, there's no mention of conservatives [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Sarah Palin]], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Michele Bachman]] or [[Carly Fiorina]]. Only showing more of their bias.
|N/A
|-
|''McLibel''
|1997 (TV version)
2005 (Extended version)
|
|The fast food industry is blamed for environmental issues in a manner similar to ''Super Size Me'' and the liberal book ''Fast Food Nation''. Unsurprisingly, Morgan Spurlock, the director of ''Super Size Me'', and Eric Schlosser, author of ''Fast Food Nation'', are present.
|
|-
|''Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God''
|2012
|NR
|Liberal Alex Gibney attacks Christianity.
|
|-
|''Religulous''
|2008
|R
|[[Militant atheism|Militant atheist]] "Comedian" [[Bill Maher]] tries to convince the audience of what he perceives to be the folly of all religion, with a special focus on Christianity.
|$13,011,160
|-
|''[[The Road We’ve Traveled]]''
|2012
|Not rated
|[[Tom Hanks]] directs & narrates Barack Obama's supposed achievements
|NA
|-
|''Roger & Me''
|1989
|R
|[[Michael Moore]] blames capitalism for the downfall of Flint, Michigan instead of the [[trade unions]] that bullied businesses & forced them to ship jobs overseas (due to excessive taxation) or the fact that Flint has been under [[Democratic]] leadership since 1973. Later on, Moore would also admit that he never interviewed Roger Smith.<ref>http://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2007/06/16/2717913.htm</ref>
|$6,706,368
|-
|''The Selling of the Pentagon''
|1971
|NR
|CBS pushed this anti-American/anti-Vietnam War propaganda. The producers refused to divulge their sources to the Pentagon, and at least one of the officials involved entered a minor lawsuit against CBS.<ref name="Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning">https://www.weeklystandard.com/print/dan-rathers-day-of-reckoning/article/5895</ref>
|
|-
|''She's Beautiful When She's Angry''
|2014
|NR
|Nothing more than feminist propaganda being passed off as truth.
|$421,573<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beautifulwhenangry.htm</ref>
|-
|''Super Size Me''
|2004
|PG-13
|Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but food from McDonald's for a month to show the negative effects of doing so and tries using this experiment that no sane person would attempt to blame [[obesity]] on great capitalist paragons like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].
|$11,536,423
|-
|''The Tillman Story''
|2010
|R
|A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and [[Army Ranger]] [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister. Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The [[liberal bias]] was clear, make Tillman a liberal [[atheist]] anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary.
|$802,535
|-
|''Under the Gun''
|2016
|R
|Anti-second amendment, the film was criticized for its inaccuracies.
|
|-
|''The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception''
|1982
|NR
|Anti-American/Anti-Vietnam War propaganda that infamously accused General [[William Westmoreland]] of deliberately understating the force strength of the [[Vietcong]] during the Tet Offensive. This resulted in a libel suit made by Westmoreland against CBS that promptly went to court after an internal investigation was issued due to ''TV Guide'' finding damning evidence of similar journalistic malpractice that was practiced in the earlier documentary/propaganda ''The Selling of the Pentagon'', which ultimately resulted in CBS losing its libel insurance, as well as the documentary unit being scrapped when [[Larry Tisch]] took over in 1987.<ref name="Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning" />
|
|-
|''The Wall Within''
|June 2, 1988
|Unrated
|A documentary helmed by extremely liberal "journalist" [[Dan Rather]] that reinforced the false image of Vietnam War veterans being anti-social degenerates suffering from PTSD and drug abuse. Was also particularly infamous in that all six of the "veterans" that were interviewed were later confirmed by various documents to have never even served during the events they mentioned, and even the one who actually DID serve did not do so with boots on the ground and was a repairman.<ref>http://loonybird.com/media_dan_rather.htm</ref>
|N/A
|-
|''Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price''
|2005
|
|This anti-capitalist schlock vilifies [[Wal-Mart]] and other discount stores. Created by the far-left Communist studio Brave New Films.
|$1.5 million
|-
|''Winter Soldier''
|1972
|Not Rated
|The 1972 film about U.S. troops from [[Vietnam]] put on record as baby killers, [[human rights]] violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in Vietnam and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in [[Congress]] over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.
|Unknown
|-
|''Years of Living Dangerously''
|2014
|N/A
|Environmental schlockumentary spearheaded by ultra-liberal, [[James Cameron]], and featuring several proponents of [[Hollywood Values]] trying to preach the false idea of [[climate change]].
|
|}

==Anti-Christian and Sacrilegious films==

''See also:'' [[Atheist films]]

IMDb (Internet Movie Database) is an internet based database of information related to films, television programs, home videos, video games, and streaming content and these works rated in terms of their quality.

The IMDb list of [[Atheism|atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] themed movies indicates in terms of its ratings that there were many that were poorly done and there were many that were certainly not cinematic masterpieces.<ref>[https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076551036/ Atheism themed movies - IMDb]</ref>

[[Wikipedia]], an online encyclopedia founded by an atheist and [[Agnosticism|agnostic]], has not "Atheist films" or "List of atheist films" articles, but it does have a "List of [[Christianity|Christian]] films" article.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_films List of Christian films - Wikipedia]</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''2001: A Space Odyssey''
|1968
|G
|Stanley Kubrick's most notable film was controversial upon its release for its atheistic themes, particularly its support of the [[Theory of evolution]].
|$56,954,992
|-
|''After Earth''
|2013
|PG-13
|This box office failure contains a peculiar mix of both evolutionist and [[Scientology|Scientologist]] themes, and it further tarnished M. Night Shyamalan's directorial career.
|$60,522,097
|-
||Almost any film directed by Luis Buñuel
|
|
|Luis Buñuel was an atheist bigoted against Christians. He unjustly ridiculed Christians throughout his filmography and was a pioneer in making this schlock being considered "art" when it is really just offensive, vulgar and grotesque liberal smut.
|
|-
|''Antichrist''
|2009
|NR
|This gruesome film's title says it all: it's full of horrifying imagery juxtaposed to Christian symbols.
|$791,867
|-
|''Battlefield Earth''
|2000
|PG-13
|This Scientologist propaganda piece failed at the box-office and is largely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. It "won" in nine categories at the Golden Raspberry Awards (aka, the Razzie Awards), making it the most awarded film at the Razzies until ''Jack and Jill'' took its place. Furthermore, it won one-time awards for "Worst Drama of our first 25 Years" during the 2005 awards, as well as "Worst Picture of the Decade" in 2010. Lastly, the film plays into the liberal notion of personal characteristics mattering more than true merits: John Travolta is the star because of his affiliation with the "church" of Scientology.
|$21 million
|-
|''Book of Mormon''
|2011
|R
|Written by atheists Trey Parker and Matt Stone as what they sarcastically call "an atheist's love letter to religion", this musical insults every aspect of the Mormon religion as two of the church's elders embark on a mission to Africa. There are several Biblical inaccuracies, which reflects the writers' insane, misguided belief that Christians will believe anything word-for-word if it's written in the Bible. In one song, a group of tribal Ugandans swears against God in the Ugandan language.
|
|-
|''The Boondock Saints''
|1999
|R
|The characters are supposed to be Christians (or "saints" as the title suggests), but they show themselves as anything but. They dispense their own form of vigilante justice (summary execution) and say the F-word in every sentence they can. The FBI agent who chases them is hinted throughout the film to be [[homosexual]]. Overall, the film is just a vulgar ''[[Death Wish]]'' rip-off.
|
|-
|''Breaking the Waves''
|1996
|R
|It wrongly claims that God rewards and endorses adulterers and prostitution while vilifying devout Christians.
|$3,803,298
|-
|''The Canterbury Tales''
|1972 (Italy and West Germany) 1980 (USA)
|NC-17
|Directed by communist homosexual Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini, the film is an utter butchering of the seminal work by Geoffery Chaucer, even including movie-exclusive scenes proving that its viewpoint is inherently left-wing and anti-Christian. Among the most infamous additions include two priests engaging in sodomy (only one is punished via execution due to being poor and thus unable to bribe his way out) and Satan defecating out screaming friars.
|N/A
|-
|''Cloud Atlas''
|2012
|R
|Supports the idea of reincarnation and features anti-Christian undertones. Additionally, supports the idea of homosexuality and [[transvestitism]], as many of the characters are resurrected as the opposite sex, while still played by the same actor. This idea of supporting homosexuality is further brought to the forefront as one of the movie's directors recently came out as having had a sex change operation as a way to promote the movie.
|$27,108,272
|-
|''The Craft''
|1996
|R
|As the title implies, it depicts witchcraft in a positive light.
|$24,819,936
|-
|''The Crucible''
|1996
|PG-13
|Based upon the Broadway play by communist sympathizer Arthur Miller, this historical revisionist drama is an allegory intentionally written to compare the Christians of the Salem Witch Trials to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and comparing those accused of witchcraft to the communists HUAC hunted, ultimately spreading the idea that American communists of the Cold War era were helpless "victims" of HUAC. In real history, John Proctor, one of the accused, was reported as living a “Christian life in his family and was ever ready to help such as they stood in need”, but in the film, he confesses to being a witch and publicly denounces God.
|$7,343,114
|-
|''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Based on the book of the same name, this mystery film supports the false theory that [[Jesus]] Christ married [[Mary Magdalene]], pushing feminism and attacking Christianity along the way.
|$217,536,138
|-
|''Dead Poets Society''
|1989
|PG
|A worldly literature professor, John Keating (Robin Williams) is shown as inspiring and "open-minded". This contrasts with the conservative Christian boarding school where he teaches, apparently portrayed as conformist, oppressive, and materialistic. The film also appears to promote teen suicide, as one of the main characters is able to commit suicide without a negative word ever being uttered against his actions by any positive character.
|$95,860,116
|-
|''Dogma''
|1999
|R
|This attack on religion, particularly [[Catholic]]ism, contains cheap smutty jokes and incorrectly makes [[God]] female.
|$30,652,890
|-
|''Exodus: Gods and Kings''
|2014
|PG-13
|The prophet Moses is radically changed into an atheist and a terrorist. Glenn Beck said it essentially turns Moses into "an al-Qaeda member" who "doesn't want to rely on God anymore".
|$65,014,513
|-
|''Forty Days and Forty Nights''
|2002
|R
|In this vulgar sex comedy, the main character has to give up sex for Lent, and his ex-girlfriend tries tempting him to break his commitment throughout. Interestingly, it was released ''during'' the Lent season, so William Donnahue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, requested to both then-[[Disney]] CEO [[Michael Eisner]] and [[Harvey Weinstein]] that they reschedule the airing of the film, citing that "To show a film that parodies Lent in a most vulgar way is bad enough, but to show it during Lent is outrageous."<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/appeal-to-michael-eisner-and-harvey-weinstein-reschedule-40-days-and-40-nights/</ref> In addition, despite the inflammatory material in the movie, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] head Foxman did not call out the film.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083014/posts</ref>
|$37,950,822
|-
|''The Golden Compass''
|2007
|PG-13
|Based on the atheistic ''His Dark Materials'' series.
|$70,107,728
|-
|''Hail Mary''
|1985
|NR
|Marxist filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard retells the story of Mary and Joseph in the modern day. As per his business casual, it was controversial upon its release. [[Pope John Paul II]] condemned it, claiming it was likely to offend the deeply religious because of its explicit nudity. Additionally, it depicts Joseph as a womanizing man [censored] and Mary in a similar light, as there is a montage where she is completely in the nude for no apparent reason. The film was banned in deeply religious countries such as [[Brazil]] and [[Argentina]].
|
|-
|''The Haunting of Molly Hartley''
|2008
|PG-13
|Christians are either starry-eyed kooks or homicidal maniacs, while those implied to be Satanists live a happy lifestyle.
|$15,418,749
|-
|''Hercules''
|2014
|PG-13
|This film seems to take a more atheistic turn on the Greek hero as opposed to the mythology behind Hercules.
|$72,688,614
|-
|''Inherit the Wind''
|1960
|Not Rated
|This historical revisionist drama contains a series of Hollywood-perpetuated lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] to smear Christianity, including: portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as ignorant, harsh, and punitive, based on an incorrect of his actions and testimony; falsely claiming that, at the end, Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid "caring" and "reasonable" [[Darwin]]ists; and wrongfully depicting Darwinists in a positive light and Christians as "deceitful". In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.
|
|-
|''The Invention of Lying''
|2009
|PG-13
|Written and directed by British atheist [[Ricky Gervais]], the movie takes place in an alternate reality where the concept of lying does not exist until Gervais' character invents it. As a consequence of lying not previously existing, religion hasn't existed either, so, behind the facade of a romantic comedy, the main message of the film is that all religion is based in lies.
|
|-
|''Kingdom of Heaven'' (theatrical version)
|2005
|R
|Atheist Ridley Scott directs this revisionist historical piece that portrays Muslims as the "victims" of the Crusades. In truth, the Muslims of the day won every Crusade except the first (in which Christians briefly prevailed), the third and the sixth.
|$47.4 million
|-
|''[[The Last Temptation of Christ]]''
|1988
|R
|The film's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where he comes down from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out his life as a full mortal man. He learns on his deathbed that he was deceived by [[Satan]] and begs God to let him "be [God's] son," at which point he finds himself once again on the cross. At other points in the film, Jesus is depicted as building crosses for the Romans, being tormented by the voice of God, and lamenting the many sins he believes he has committed.
Because of these departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' then-parent company MCA. One of the protestors dressed up as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross. Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it. The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film. One of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.
Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun and foundress of Eternal Word Television Network, described ''Last Temptation'' as "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world" and "a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally."
In some countries, including Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.
|$8,373,585
|-
|''Legion''
|2010
|R
|In this blasphemous film, God uses an army of angels to wipe out humanity, ignoring Psalm 91:11's promise that He sends angels to protect humanity.
|$40,168,080
|-
|''The Ledge''
|2011
|Not Rated
|Atheist screenplay writer Matthew Chapman confirmed that the main character is the first openly atheist hero in American cinema. Likewise, his work misleadingly depicts Christianity, via the character Jon, as being "bigoted", abusive, and domineering. Because of this, ''The Ledge'' failed at the box office flop and received generally negative reviews, with the liberal site [[TV Tropes]], similar to the issue with Thomas in the later liberal animated film adaptation ''Peter Rabbit'', even admitting under the articles "Unintentionally Sympathetic" and "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" that Jon was ultimately closer to being in the right than the main protagonist, Gavin.
|$610,986
|-
|''The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc''
|1999
|R
|The prominent historical figure Joan of Arc is psychologically and emotionally unstable, impulsive, and prone to mood swings, so she leads the French army to victory purely out of selfishness, cruelty, and vengeance. However, historical evidence proves the contrary. Evidently, this film was made to criticize Roman Catholicism.
|$66,976,317
|-
|''Monty Python's Life of Brian''
|1979
|R
|A man is born on the same day as Christ Jesus and is mistaken for the Messiah. Expect an hour and a half of rampant sacrilege to follow suit.
|$19,398,164
|-
|''[[Monty Python's The Meaning of Life]]''
|1983
|R
|It's ninety minutes of absurdist, godless existentialism with a sacrilegious person's view of [[Heaven]] at the end by the staunchly nonreligious British troupe Monty Python. Need we say more?
|$14,929,552
|-
|''The Most Hated Woman in America''
|2017
|R
|This biographical drama sympathizes with [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], who is responsible for ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963 ([[Atheism and Mass Murder|and disastrous results that liberals refuse to talk about]]), and not surprisingly turns her into a martyr (even though she and her family were robbed and murdered by people working for her own atheist organization).
|
|-
|''Missionary''
|2013
|R
|Copying the deranged lover plot device from other films (ex. Fatal Attraction), this film makes the maniac a Mormon.
|
|-
|''Noah''
|2014
|PG-13
|In a liberal take on the classic story from the [[Book of Genesis]], liberals, going along with their usual ''modus operandi'', shoehorn in harmful messages that had nothing to do with the original story, such as [[environmentalism]], living on a vegan diet, and most notably, insisting that the [[Theory of Evolution]] is "fact". In addition, many traits of the "antagonists" appeared to be more Biblical than those of the "protagonists".<ref>Patterson, Roger & Chaffey, Tim (March 29, 2014). [https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noah-movie-detailed-review/ The ''Noah'' Movie: Our Detailed Review]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 9, 2016.</ref>
|$101,200,044
|-
|''Oh! Heavenly Dog''
|1980
|PG
|Don't let the title fool you. The movie is anything but heavenly, as it smears Christianity and presents a false depiction of reincarnation.
|N/A
|-
|''Practical Magic''
|1998
|PG-13
|Yet another film glorifying witchcraft and attempting to mix romantic comedy into it (which even puzzled liberal critics).<ref>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/practical_magic/</ref> This was one of the many wiccan movies released during the late 90's.
|$46,683,377
|-
|''Priest''
|1994
|R
|Blatantly anti-Catholic and pro-homosexual.
|$4,165,845
|-
|''Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves''
|1991
|PG-13
|In this storm of political correctness for the sake of political correctness, the Christianity of Robin Hood and his Merry Men is heavily downplayed, save for Friar Tuck's initial bigotry toward the Muslim character Azeem. Azeem, who is not present in the original Robin Hood legends but was created for this version of the Robin Hood saga, is depicted as a wise, open-minded, tolerant mystic. Robin Hood and Azeem are portrayed by liberals Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman, respectively.
|$390.5 million
|-
|''September Dawn''
|2007
|R
|This anti-Mormon propaganda piece blatantly distorts history. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was perpetrated by a group of Mormons, but, despite what this movie says, Church authority did not authorize such an act, and they still condemn it to this day. This movie was strategically released in order to muddy the waters of Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. Fortunately, the filmmakers did not get away with their heinous crimes, as ''September Dawn'' received extremely negative reviews from film critics, very weak box office receipts, and a Golden Raspberry Award nomination.
|$1,066,555
|-
|''Silent Hill''
|2006
|R
|Based on the horror-themed video game series with the same name (go figure), the Christians are the cult-like antagonists.
|$46,982,632
|-
|''Silent Night, Deadly Night''
|1984
|R
|A man becomes a serial killer after abuse from the Christian orphanage wherein he grew up. Conservative Christians successfully protested being vilified, and the film was pulled from theaters within one week of its release.
|$2,491,460
|-
|''Spotlight''
|2015
|R
|Another film bashing Christianity. The "heroes" uncover a scandal of child molestation in the Catholic Church. The film portrays them as "brave" (because Hollywood hasn't bashed Christianity enough) but ignores the fact that homosexual infiltrators within the Church, seeking to discredit and damage the Church, were responsible for the atrocities and their subsequent coverup. Strangely, the same unspeakable acts have been happening legally in Islamic nations but they are conveniently ignored by the liberal media (if the journalists uncovered that, then that would be an example of bravery). It also downplays the effect homosexuality had by having several characters specifically deny that homosexuality was a factor in their victimization and subsequent turns to homosexuality.
|$45,055,776
|-
|''Star Trek V: The Final Frontier''
|1989
|PG
|Secular humanists are kind, but the religiously devout as violent and ruthless. Even liberally biased critics didn't like it, as it won three Golden Raspberry Awards (Razzie Awards), including Worst Picture of 1989, and was nominated for three more Razzies.
|$63 million
|-
|''Sunshine''
|2007
|R
|This vehemently nonreligious, apocalyptic film is full of scientific inaccuracy. Christianity is embodied in a homicidal psychopath, who believes that it is the will of God for the world to end. This Christian is willing to kill anyone who gets in the way of what he believes is the will of God. The personified atheism, in contrast, is "sympathetic", "kind", and "pro-humanity".
|$32 million
|-
|''The Truman Show''
|1998
|PG
|An atheism and humanism propaganda piece about liberal president Harry Truman. Truman doesn't realize his seemingly ordinary life is a reality TV show, overseen by Christof, the show's heartless and manipulative creator. Christof lives in the fake sky above Truman, watching over him, controlling everything from the weather to Truman's destiny. He is an allegorical substitute for the Christian God. (Notice "Christ" in his name.) Truman must escape from the false world of the show (Christianity) and triumph over Christof. As Truman appears to walk on water in the ending, the film is displaying the false, human-worshipping sentiment that man can replace God and be Lord of his own life.
|$31,542,121
|-
|''Victor Frankenstein''
|2015
|PG-13
|The protagonist of the classic conservative novel warning against the consequences of playing God is now one of the most openly atheist protagonists in cinema.
|$34.2 million
|-
|}

==Debatable Whether Liberal==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''21 Jump Street''
|2011
|R
|Two police officers try to take down a drug ring in high school where the villains are environmentalists and drug dealers. But contains many sexual references, full profanity, and many religious insults. A parodic comedy remake of the 1987–91 [[Fox Network]] police drama of the same name.
|$201,585,328
|-
|''The 40-Year-Old Virgin''
|2005
|R
|A bawdy sex comedy about a man who is ridiculed by his peers for his indifference to sex as an adult. His friends, feeling that he isn't "normal", try to encourage him to lose his virginity, starting with pornography, sex toys, and even prostitution. However, their personal attitudes towards women ruin their own relationships, and the man remains steadfast in his abstinence. Later, he meets a woman who connects with him, but is no longer a virgin, as she has a teenage daughter. At one point, her daughter confesses only to him that she is also a virgin and encourages him not to feel bad about it. However, her mother, who has been on multiple dates with him, is still unaware of his virginity. After their proposed deadline by which the two agreed to eventually have sex, he tells her of his virginity and stays reluctant about giving in. There is some drama and confusion between them, but she eventually comes to accept him and the two are happily married at the end before having sex.
|$177.4 million
|-
|''Accepted''
|2006
|PG-13
|It criticizes the [[Department of Education]] (or colleges and universities in general) and our protagonist lives the America dream by starting his own college, but then the juvenile humor, gross-out humor and drug abuse steps in.
|$36,323,505
|-
|''Aeon Flux''
|2005
|PG-13
|Anti-cloning film, but also pro-feminism as well.
|$25,874,337
|-
|''Antz''
|1998
|PG
|It's produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], downplays the military, and possesses an implicit promotion of Communism via the main character, but also has an Anti-Eugenics message too.
|$90,757,863
|-
|''Army of Darkness''
|1993
|R
|Despite its unrealistic depictions of demons, it's a pretty gun-centric pro-Second Amendment film.
|$11,502,976
|-
|''Atlantis: The Lost Empire''
|2001
|PG
|Released during the [[Michael Eisner]] era of [[Disney]]. On the one hand, the main villain is a military commander who would endanger the lost city of Atlantis just to be rich, and it is implied that he would commit treason by selling the power source to the Kaiser during World War I for the same motivation. The theft of the crystal to become rich could be seen as a condemnation of capitalism. That being said, however, capitalism has also been promoted in a more positive light in the form of Preston B. Whitmore, an eccentric but ultimately good-hearted billionaire who funded the expedition in the first place, and in addition, most of the principal cast was shown to have dreams of getting a better lot in society, with it being heavily implied in the ending that they ultimately succeeded in achieving those dreams after selflessly trying to save Atlantis, which acts as an implicit promotion of both capitalism and the American Dream.
|$84,056,472
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast''
|1991
|G
|A young woman overcomes a shallow society and finds true love. Although by comparison a powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]] to the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since, as well as overall promoting redemption (as seen with the Beast's transformation), and also promoting some family values (such as Belle being loyal to her father), there were a few hints at feminist propaganda at the beginning of the film, such as Belle being different from the villagers because she can read, which is implied to not be supported by the villagers at all (feminist propaganda often falsely claims that women couldn't get an education until the 1960s), as well as Belle being unwilling to hold the role of housewife for Gaston or raising children, and later her blaming the titular Beast for her fleeing the castle despite most of the events leading up to and after that event being largely her fault and the story framing that as being a good thing she did. On a related note, a scene that had Belle baking a cake for her father when he got home ended up cut at the order of Linda Woolverton, with her reason specifically being because "a liberated woman [like Belle] wouldn't know how to bake," essentially implying that baking would have been the activity of non-liberated women, a typical statement by feminists.<ref name="Woolverton and Belle">https://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle</ref><ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/belle-beauty-beast-became-disneys-155053182.html</ref> In addition, the opening song and the reprise has Belle having a similar "smarter-than-thou" personality that is all too common among liberals, having her refer to the villagers derogatorily as "little people" in the beginning of the opening song, repeatedly stressing the "provincial" elements of the village when expressing her desire to leave the village, complaining about Gaston due to considering him "boorish and brainless" shortly after his failed proposal, and also dismissing the villagers as "they" when mentioning her goals ("I want so much more than what ''they've'' got planned"). On that note, due to Beast being unwilling to even defend himself, let alone the castle servants, when the mob arrived to kill him until Belle had arrived at the last second, which had been the result of Belle's attempts at civilizing Beast, it gives the implication that the ideal male in the film is not allowed to get angry or act violently even in self-defense unless a woman was physically present. Then-Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg also mentioned that he wanted "a feminist twist" on the original fairy tale by creating a heroine who is "a departure from typical Disney female characters",<ref>http://articles.mcall.com/1991-11-22/features/2825583_1_beast-s-castle-fairy-tale-madame-gabrielle</ref> which had partly been done in response to negative criticisms towards Ariel in the Conservative film ''The Little Mermaid'' (which had been the immediate preceding film) by liberal critics,<ref name="Woolverton and Belle" /> and the feminist writer [[Linda Woolverton]] made clear that she made Belle a feminist and based her on the women's liberation movement from the 1970s in order to avoid creating another insipid princess.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent">{{Cite web|url = http://time.com/2798136/maleficent-beauty-beast-writer/|title = The Same Woman Wrote Maleficent and Beauty and the Beast—Here’s How They’re Linked|date = May 30, 2014|accessdate = January 16, 2014|website = Time|publisher = |last = Rothman|first = Lily}}</ref><ref>http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/26/linda-woolverton-alice-belle-disney-heroines?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter</ref><ref>https://www.bustle.com/articles/163686-the-one-thing-beauty-and-the-beast-fans-probably-dont-know-about-the-creation-of-belle</ref><ref>http://www.mouseplanet.com/8500/Linda_Woolverton_and_Belle</ref><ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-19/entertainment/ca-544_1_disney-film</ref> On that note, this made it the first ''Disney'' animated adaptation of a fairy tale to radically alter the story specifically to promote a left-wing socio-political agenda onto the audience regardless of whether such was actually appropriate for the audience or an actual good message (as prior Disney films generally made alterations specifically to tone down anything that was otherwise inappropriate for the age group for the audience).

Gaston is a conservative and hardworking hunter who is considered by the villagers to be their town hero, but is shown to be the main villain of the movie (it should also be noted that in the original screenplay for the film, Gaston was intended to be a Marquess [French nobleman], meaning the decision to make him a conservative and hardworking hunter was made after a rewrite). In addition, although not to the same degree as other Disney films that came after it (i.e., ''The Hunchback of Notre Dame'' and ''The Princess and the Frog''), the film also has a slight anti-Christian bent, as the villagers (strongly implied by various verses in the opening song and the mob song, as well as a failed wedding, to be practicing and devout Christians) were later briefly seen supporting a plan that went against God's teachings, as well as overall depicted as being idiots, while Belle, the character framed as an intellectual and a moral figure, is not even seen or even implied to believe in God at all. In addition, Belle's love for Beast (where it is implied that she was largely unaware of the Beast being formerly a human prince) could be seen as promoting bestiality. Also, it is the first Disney movie to neither show nor hint at the two love interests getting married, and in fact, the only "wedding" in the film was the one Belle ruined, creating negative implications about marriage as a result, as well as starting a string of movies that don't paint marriage in a positive light.

Similarly, the only three females in the film who are implicitly supportive of marriage and Christianity are demeaned, depicted as dumb blondes with the script and credits explicitly referring to them derogatorily as "the bimbettes." There was also a slight anti-hunting sentiment in the film, due to the main villain, as aforementioned, explicitly being labelled as a hunter. According to Don Hahn, there were also several overtones of a pro-homosexual agenda within the film, including choice lyrics of the mob song late into the film, largely because of the executive producer, Howard Ashman, being homosexual and dying from AIDS at the time the film was made and wanting to push the idea of being "ostracized" for his suffering from AIDS.<ref>https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/03/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-lefou-howard-ashman</ref><ref>https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/16583/don-Hahn-interview-beauty-and-the-beast-howard-Ashman-the-lion-king-south-park-and-frankenweenie</ref> One of the protagonistic characters, Lumiere, is briefly seen making out with a featherduster and was implied that the two weren't married, with some hints at Lumiere being an unrepentant womanizer (with the implication being further increased in the Special Edition-exclusive song "Human Again" where Lumiere mentioned he had a "mademoiselle in each arm", would be "courting again, chic and sporting again", and Mrs. Potts interjecting "Which should cause several husbands alarm." with Lumiere laughing at this, heavily implying that Lumiere was an adulterer to married women). In addition, Maurice is depicted as slightly addled and eccentric, as well as being naïve (such as thinking Gaston was a good match for Belle despite the story making clear he wasn't), and while he does try to go out of his way to save Belle in the midway point of the film, he ultimately needs saving twice and is unable to save Belle at all, which makes it debatable as to just how pro-family the narrative actually was. In addition, some elements of the film were later reused in the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies#Social|definitely liberal]] ''Maleficent'' movie.<ref name="Beauty and Maleficent" />
|$$218,967,620
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast'' (2017 remake)
|2017
|PG
|On the one hand, the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is the latest in the film trend of needlessly and shamelessly remaking animated films or children's stories for the sake of earning easy revenue and capitalizing on current film trends in the modern, soulless Hollywood studio system. Liberals also seized the opportunity with the remake to exploit diversity and promote some liberal values within the ''Beauty and the Beast'' universe. The final result of the diversity inclusion in the cast of characters is that it feels self-congratulatory in the sense of putting it all in for the sake of having it, rather than having it be just a part of the story and the film. One notable example is the filmmakers' decision to make LeFou, Gaston's diminutive and bumbling sidekick, a homosexual who is conflicted with his feelings for Gaston (although it should be noted that in the actual script, it was never actually specified that LeFou was homosexual.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/03/josh-gad-lefou-beauty-and-the-beast/98679284/</ref>). At the end of the film, LeFou is shown taking a romantic interest in a musketeer who is now a transgender woman after being transformed into one during Gaston's siege of the Beast's castle.

Not only is it an atrocious and needless artistic decision of the filmmakers to needlessly incorporate diversity simply for the sake of it, but the 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' also serves as an example that liberals can legitimately shoehorn the [[homosexual agenda]] into Disney films. Adding salt to the wound, the filmmakers also further changed history to suit their feminist agenda, similar to previous Disney films like ''Mulan'' (1998), ''Pocahontas'' (1995) and ''The Princess and the Frog'' (2009) (most infamously, the villagers are shown to be explicitly intolerant of Belle learning how to read and teaching girls to do the same, smashing her washing machine in the process, despite the fact that the namesake for the village in this film, Mdm. Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the original author for the fairy tale, was herself a woman). The 2017 film version of ''Beauty and the Beast'' is now even more of a feminist propaganda film than the 1991 animated film version ever was. There were also hints at an anti-war message due to Gaston being turned into a war veteran.

On the other hand, there were also several surprisingly Conservative messages in the film, significantly more than in the 1991 version. Namely, Christianity is treated in a far more positive light in this film than in the 1991 version as one of the few friends Belle has in this version is the village Chaplain named Pere Robert who is shown to be sympathetic to her bibliophilic nature and also attempts to prevent Maurice from being sent to the Asylum, and later is shown to be horrified at the formation of the mob against the Beast (it is to be noted that in the original 1991 film, the character in question was merely a bookseller, not a priest, and most of the villagers, implied to be devout Christians, were demonized in the film), which was also surprisingly accurate to history despite the aforementioned changing of history in the film (in real history, Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, actively encouraged literacy, writing, and arithmetic among both genders, with girls being taught in convents or at the home.). In addition, Maurice actually is shown to be more proactive in this film, such as directly refusing Gaston's attempt at marrying Belle and even attempting to expose Gaston as an attempted murderer and psychopath, and also plays a direct role in saving Belle and himself from the paddywagon after she exposes Beast to the villagers (in the original film, although he does set out to try and find Belle and save her after trying to get the villagers to help failed, he ultimately required saving by her due to catching an illness during his trek, and ultimately needed saving alongside Belle via Chip).

In addition, Lumiere as well as the featherduster (named Plumette in this version) are shown to be an actual loving couple (in the original film, it is heavily implied that Lumiere was a frequent womanizer and that the featherduster was also sexually loose), and the remake also doesn't demonize traditional marriage nearly as much as in the 1991 version (notably, the remake cut out Gaston's wedding proposal as well as Belle shoving Gaston into mud in front of attendees). The forgiveness and redemption theme was also significantly more emphasized in the remake, due to Beast ultimately forgiving Maurice after learning why he had tried to steal the rose and even allowing Belle to save Maurice specifically to make up for his past behavior, with Maurice also forgiving Beast upon Belle showing him the baby rattle (originally, Maurice was a bit more hesitant to forgive the Beast). It is also shown to be significantly more pro-family as well, as not only is Belle shown to be loyal to her father like in the 1991 original, but as noted above, Maurice himself took measures to protect Belle and notably agreed with Belle that Gaston would not have worked out for her (originally, Maurice also thought Gaston was alright for her), and he also was shown to be very protective of Belle after his wife had died from the plague, with Belle's mom specifically sacrificing herself by telling them to leave her behind to allow Belle a healthy life.

In addition, the triplets (renamed to "Village Lasses") in the remake were depicted as having haughtiness, arrogance, being jealous of Belle, as well as overall being nasty people, including briefly smirking at Belle when she was locked up in the paddywagon as well as being actively involved in the arrest of Maurice as well as the later attack on Beast's castle (in the original film, the triplets were not shown to have any negative behavior to them besides their crushing on Gaston [not participating in the later arrest of Maurice, let alone the attack on Beast's castle shortly afterward during the climax, and also implying at one point that they were willing to give their blessing to Gaston marrying Belle when Belle refused him in the beginning of the film, and while they were present during the final lyrics for the Gaston reprise where Gaston explicitly divulged key details for his blackmail plan, the way it was framed could easily be interpreted as the triplets genuinely not knowing about the plan due to their absence from Maurice's arrival up to the scene where Gaston whispers the plan to LeFou.], and it is also heavily implied that they supported traditional marriage and were demeaned in the film by being referred to in the script as The Bimbettes and treated as dumb blondes for this reason). In addition, according to the film's director Bill Condon as well as one of the triplets' actresses, Rafaelle Cohen, the reason the triplets were intensely jealous and spiteful of Belle was because their mother neglected them while doting on Belle, showcasing the dangers of parental neglect.
|
|-
|''Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas''
|1998
|G
|Paints Christmas in a positive light, and has Beast learning the meaning behind it, as well as putting aside the past relating to it being the reason he was cursed. Also significantly tones down the more feminist messaging from the original film. The manner in which Christmas was depicted, however, was closer to the secular view of Christmas than the actual intended meaning of the holiday being a celebration of the birth of [[Jesus Christ]].
|N/A (Direct to video movie)
|-
|''The Bee Movie''
|2007
|PG
|Its debatable whether or not its environmentalist or against it. It does show the destructiveness of environmentalism (i.e. butting into nature's problems in the name of helping her). The anti-human human sentiments in the movie turned out to be wrong, however, the humans are taking the honey made by the bees, similar to the welfare program of taking from those who worked for it. Others believe the movie promotes [[bestiality]], and is just disguised as a family movie.
|$287,600,000
|-
|''Bohemian Rhapsody''
|2018
|PG-13
|A biopic of [[Freddie Mercury]], the lead singer of the band Queen. While it does show elements of the practice of homosexuality and hedonism, at the same time, the film largely condemned the practice since it was made clear that Mercury's embracing of these things was what ultimately ruined Queen and his personal relationships, and is what ultimately killed him via AIDS. In addition, Paul Prenter, the only other major character to embrace homosexuality in the movie, was depicted in a very negative light, as he was one of the reasons Mercury went down a bad path, with it being made clear later on that Paul largely was using Mercury for his own gratification, blamed others for his bad ideas, and even hid vital information from Mercury deliberately such as the Live Aid concert plans as well as Mary Austin calling him. It also had a promotion of redemption, as Mercury, inspired largely by his former girlfriend/wife, Mary Austin nearing the end of the film, attempts to reconnect with his band and family and make amends in the time he had left before dying from AIDS. That all being said, however, it's debatable whether the film intended to paint his homosexual escapades in a negative light, as several members of the production company, including Freddie Mercury's actor Rami Malek, indicated that it was a "regrettable" decision as a result of not having enough time to give a "more balanced" view of (ie, promoting) his bisexual lifestyle.
|
|-
|''The Campaign''
|2012
|R
|Political comedy depicts the Democrat candidate (Will Ferrell) as an obnoxious, drunken womanizer and satire of [[John Edwards]], although the Republican candidate (Zach Galifianakis) is portrayed just as negatively as a corrupt capitalist.
|$33,165,738
|-
|''Chicken Run''
|2000
|G
|Produced by [[Jeffrey Katzenberg]], this vegan propaganda film compares a chicken farm to the [[Holocaust]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynn_A73hcfs</ref> The main villain of the movie is a capitalist who wants to make chicken pies. The film also promotes elements of feminism and anti-Americanism. On other hand the main villain of the movie is also a feminist as well as she called her husband's ancestors "poor worthless nothings"
|$106,834,564
|-
|''The Crow''
|1994
|R
|The tagline claims that our hero is an angel, but he doesn't display any Christian values. However, there is an anti-drug scene were Eric Draven (the hero) makes a drug addict mother realize that her daughter needs her & gets her off drugs. On top of that the film's villains are nihilist anarchists. The film is notable for being Brandon Lee's last film, as an accident on the set killed him during production.
|$50,693,129
|-
|''Ed Wood''
|1994
|R
|Although it does glorify cross dressing and the [[homosexual agenda]]. It still is pro-capitalism and the film also glorifies the American dream. As despite the obstacles Wood faces, he still continues doing what he loves in making movies.
|$5,887,457
|-
|''Edward Scissorhands''
|1990
|PG-13
|Endorsed by the Christian website ChristianAnswers.net with a 4 out of 5 star rating. Conversely however, a prominently featured Christian character - the only character in the movie ever identified as Christian - is portrayed as fanatical and bigoted against people with scissors for hands.
|$56,362,352
|-
|''Falling Down''
|1993
|R
|Film takes jabs at many [[liberal values]], [[illegal immigration]], union workers, multiculturalism, (one scene where Bill tells his ex-wife that the ice cream shop him and his family used to go to is now a Mexican store) and foreign aid (in one scene Bill asks an illegal Korean immigrate a rhetorical question on how much America has given his country and yells at him after he refuses to learn the language).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tC4qfv92Q</ref> It's also one of the very few films to be truthful in the "Nazis were right wingers" myth perpetrated by liberals, in which Bill informs a Neo-Nazi that he's an American and the Nazi is a sick a-hole. As well as many shots where the America flag is trashed upon (which could symbolize how liberalism has trashed everything America has stood for).<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg</ref> But at the same time it also takes jabs at capitalism, where Bill believes he's no longer commercially valuable. And although the plot is about man trying to reach his daughter's birthday party, the film seems to toy with its audience in suggesting whether he's mentally ill or not, as opposed to a pro-family message.
|$40,903,593
|-
|''[[Fargo]]''
|1996
|R
|A pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping, and murder scheme. It remains debatable whether she is a feminist or feminine protagonist.
|$24,611,975
|-
|''Furry Vengeance''
|2010
|PG
|This film is environmentalism and anti-[[Capitalist|capitalist]] on steroids. A wealthy businessman and his employees are the antagonists for doing their job. One of them gets attacked by a raccoon. In the end, the main character, a real estate developer, is forced to change his job after "learning the animals' stories" and he even puts up a poster saying that anyone who violates the forest preservation will be fined at $1,000,000.00. However, the film is also pro-family, as well as taking a jab at LGBT, with a joke of the protagonist being forced to wear his wife's clothes after the animals steal his, this is played for laughs and is clearly anti-[[cross dressing]]. (Though they are wearing again in the end credits).
|$35,000,000
|-
|''Ghost''
|1990
|PG-13
|The [[Bible]] claims ghosts don't exist. Still this film toys with idea that they do, also it has liberal actress Whoopi Goldberg as a psychic medium. Nevertheless, the film does show Christian values, as ghost Sam Wheat tries to uncover a bank fraud case, when he does convinces Goldberg to give the money to a Christian charity. It also has an anti-infidelity message, as despite being widowed, Sam's wife Molly still refuses to be with anyone else, even when his false friend Carl tries to hit on her. Also it isn't PC on [[Eternal damnation|damnation]], as the villains are seen being cared away helplessly by evil spirits after they die.
|$217,631,306
|-
|''Good Kill''
|2014
|R
|Ethan Hawke plays a man who questions the ethics of his job as a drone pilot, while it is taking a jab at the [[Barack Obama]] regime (Obama has droned more people in the Middle East than George W. Bush, most of whom were innocent bystanders and the left has ignored it or claimed it was a "Fox News conspiracy"). It could also be against the War on Terror too.
|$316,472
|-
|''Grave of the Fireflies''
|1988
|UR
|While the film has been labeled anti-war, the director Isao Takahata stated the actual meaning was about growing up. The film's message is still debatable to this day.
|
|-
|''Halloween III: Season of the Witch''
|1982
|R
|Unlike the two films before it (which has mass murder Michael Myers) this film's villain is a pagan who plans on sacrificing children via witchcraft to bring back the original celebration of Halloween. However he does this by selling masks to them which many critics pointed out may have been an anti-capitalism message.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/22/movies/haloween-iii-plotting-a-joke.html</ref> The film's "hero" is also an adulterer.
|$14,400,000
|-
|''Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters''
|2013
|R
|Western fairy tale characters Hansel and Gretel are now adults and have their own private bounty hunting organization in hunting witches. Portrays witchcraft in a negative manner, and guns in good light. But the gore, graphic violence and brief nudity is rather unnecessary.
|$55,703,475
|-
|''Harry and the Hendersons''
|1987
|PG
|Should be PG-13 for multiple uses of the dreaded S-word in profanity.
|$49 million
|-
|''High Noon''
|1952
|UR
|A favorite of both Presidents [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and [[Bill Clinton]]; [[John Wayne]] said it was "the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life";<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
|$3,750,000
|-
|''Hoot''
|2006
|PG
|Environmentalist movie about a bunch of kids who stand up to a CEO company that is trying to put one of its restaurants on a burrowing owl habitat. However, despite a businessman being the main villain its not really anti-capitalist, as it does not portray the compnay in negative light. As the protagonists clearly have nothing angainst the business itself, even the main character states "A panacake House would be great." Also shows a police officer in postiive light. Oberall the movie contains many morals, and promoting friendshi and it does give kids the great inspiration to stand up for what they believe is right.
|$8,117,637
|-
|''Horrible Bosses 2''
|2014
|R
|Sequel to Horrible Bosses. Though this film could be argued to actually support the American Dream and capitalism, which its processor clearly did not.
|$54,445,357
|-
|''[[The Hunger Games]]''
|2012
|PG-13
|Futuristic totalitarians plan titular annual televised "games" as punishment on the descendants of failed revolutionaries from a past uprising. Although technically a message against totalitarianism and for individualism, Leftist actor Donald Sutherland, who played President Snow, implied that the struggles of the films' protagonists were supposed to be derived from the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the book's author also indicated that the events of the book were based on the George W. Bush administration.
|$406,267,858
|-
|''Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull''
|2008
|PG-13
|Although the film does depict the Communists as bad guys (to such an extent that the Russian Communist Party in Moscow was angered by the decision), and implies that Indiana Jones is a Republican or at the very least an [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] fan, the film also depicts McCarthyism in a negative light, with one character implying that the American Government was simply being paranoid and denies there being a sizeable Communist infiltration in America, and also seems to promote paganism in the form of the Crystal Skull.
|$786.6 million
|-
|''The Iron Giant''
|1999
|PG
|This animation espouses anti-war themes and also brief but strong anti-hunting sentiments. Firearms in general are shown in a negative light, with the phrase "guns kill" being repeated a total of three times. The titular giant is referred to as a "big gun that walks." From a conservative viewpoint, he is a poor metaphor for a real gun; unlike a law-abiding citizen who is a gun owner, the giant has no choice in his actions because he is a war machine programmed with the inability to use his weapons for good, but only to use them thoughtlessly and senselessly. The story involves him learning to hide his weapons and "not be a gun". The conclusion is that, in order to protect the public from an incoming missile, he must fly into it and kill himself rather than use his guns against it. As it is explained, "It's bad to kill, but it isn't bad to die." In addition, despite being set during the Cold War, it largely downplays the Soviet menace that was occurring during that time, as the main antagonist, Kent Mansley, is a government agent (implied to be part of the NSA) investigating the titular Iron Giant who at one point while launching a tirade against Hogarth Hughes alludes to the possibility that the Communists may have been responsible for the Giant's creation as a means to destroy America and that they must destroy it before "it destroys us" and is treated negatively for it. Also features some foul language.

That all being said, however, despite the definite anti-gun and anti-hunting themes, the film does portray the military in a fairly positive light, as General Rogarth was shown to be even-headed and only willing to use military force if confronted with evidence requiring for it, also making clear that he was not happy about bringing out an implied large military force for what was apparently a hoax, and while the military does try to attack the Iron Giant late into the film, it was only because they had been manipulated into doing so by Kent Mansley by the latter lying about the giant killing Hogarth Hughes, and only when confronted with evidence that Hogarth had in fact been alive did the military stand down. In addition, when Hogarth left to investigate the evidence of a "martian" taking out an antenna, he proceeded to salute a photograph of his father, who was implied to have died during World War II. Also has a positive portrayal of the American icon Superman in it. There's also an anti-materialist message in it as well as an implicitly Christian message, as Hogarth talks to the Giant about how humans and other forms of life possess souls that live on even after their mortal bodies die.
|$5,732,614
|-
|''The Iron Lady''
|2011
|PG-13
|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain, helping to lift the country out of its recession. However, it also showed Margaret Thatcher in a somewhat negative light, depicting her during her late years as becoming slightly addled.
|$80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)
|-
|''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
|1946
|UR
|It promotes the concept of self-worth and individualism ultimately, and that choices do in fact matter and have consequences, and ultimately promotes faith to a certain extent. However, it also falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
|$3,300,000
|-
|''Jaws''
|1975
|PG
|Anti-environmentalism film, the heroes are police chief Brody, WWII vet Quint and Marine Biologist Hooper who team up to take on a monstrous, man-eating great white shark. However, there is a part where (despite the warning) the Mayor keeps the beaches open for the sake of money, which some may say is an anti-capitalism statement. Notable for being one of the first summer blockbusters. It was followed by three sequels in 1978, 1983 and 1987.
|$260,000,000<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm</ref>
|-
|''Juno''
|2007
|PG-13
|A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.
|$143,492,840
|-
|''Jurassic World''
|2015
|PG-13
|Jurassic Park is now functioning and open for business and the new boss is a woman, an obvious feminist message. Also the military is downgraded as they plan to weaponize dinosaurs. Despite all this feminists weren't impressed and labeled it sexist<ref>https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/jurassic-world-a-big-dumb-sexist-mess.html</ref> and even liberal critics called the weaponizing dinosaurs plot asinine.<ref>http://thoughtcatalog.com/olos-nah/2015/06/ill-just-say-what-everyone-is-thinking-jurassic-world-is-terrible/</ref>
|$652,270,625
|-
|''Kiki's Delivery Service''
|1989
|G
|The film does show the value of hard work and is pro-capitalism (Kiki owns her own delivery business), but at the same time depicts feminism and witchcraft in a positive light.
|$18 million
|-
|''Kingdom of Heaven'' (director's cut)
|2005
|R
|A story set in the Crusades period about a young knight. While the theatrical version was a pure liberal media, the director's cut promotes fighting, honor, duty, and portrays the noble Knights Hospitallers in a positive light. That being said, the movie still portrays Knights Templars in a negative light.
|$47,398,413
|-
|''Kingsman: The Secret Service''
|2015
|R
|Anti-environmentalist, the villain attempts to eradicate the human race because of his belief in man-made global warming. Though the film is full of language and violence as well as a brief nudity scene. There's also one scene were one of the characters gets into a bloody fight with a group of Christians whom are portrayed as "racists".
|$128,261,724
|-
|''Knocked Up''
|2007
|R
|Unemployed, immature and childish 23-year old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) has a one-night stand with serious career woman Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl), with the unintended consequence of pregnancy. Alison's mother (Joanna Kerns) says she should get the pregnancy "[[abortion|taken care of]]", while Ben's best friend Jonah (Jonah Hill) suggests that "I won't say the A-word, but it rhymes with abortion." Alison decides to keep the child, while Ben decides to find a real job, grow up, and become a father.
|$148,768,917
|-
|''The LEGO Movie''
|2014
|PG
|Anti-Large Government, with a message that anyone has the potential to be extraordinary. However is also anti-capitalist, and the main villain is Lord Business.
|$257,760,692
|-
|''Lincoln''
|2012
|PG-13
|Bio film on conservative icon [[Abraham Lincoln]], played wonderfully by Daniel Day-Lewis. Although overall very positive towards Lincoln and the Republican Party, it nonetheless downplays the role the Democrat Party played in the institution of slavery during the Civil War.
|$182,207,973
|-
|''Lionheart''
|1990
|R
|Pro-family as Jean-Claude Van Damme plays Lyon Gaultier (nicknamed Lionheart) who becomes a street fighter to help pay his sister-in-law's expenses after her husband is killed. During this time he also tries to reconnect with his estranged family. However he gets into the country illegally, which some could point out is a pro-illegal immigration statement.
|$24,078,196
|-
|''The Lorax''
|2012
|PG
|Although it has an environmentalist agenda, it also states that monopolies are wrong.
|$214,030,500
|-
|''Mulan''
|1998
|G
|The film has Liberals changing history to suit their feminist agenda similar to what they did in Pocahontas as well as some historical revisionism (In the film the Huns are at war with China, even though this never happened, although that said, the name of the villain, Shan Yu, hints at them being Xiongyu). However, the central theme of [[Filial piety]] from work it was based on, [[The Ballad of Mulan]], is still present ultimately, as the main reason Mulan joined the military was because her father suffered a severe injury that made him unfit for combat, and the film is pro-Military.
|$120,620,254
|-
|''P.C.U.''
|1994
|PG-13
|College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
|$4,350,774
|-
|''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
|2004
|R
|Downplays the [[Resurrection]]<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
|$370,782,930
|-
|''Pillow Talk''
|1959
|UR
|A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
|$18,750,000
|-
|''The Princess and the Frog''
|2009
|G
|Liberals praised this film for featuring Disney's first African American princess but ignored the fact that it insults Christianity with Louisiana Voodoo, even replacing the traditional role of the fairy godmother with a blind voodoo priestess. On top of that, ''The Princess and the Frog'' is said to have stolen much of its plot from great conservative film ''The Little Mermaid'' <ref>http://crowdofstars.livejournal.com/14186.html</ref> That being said, however, it does depict traditional femininity in a positive light in the form of the side character Charlotte LeBoeuf, and is the first Disney animated feature film to have a positive depiction of traditional marriage since ''The Little Mermaid'' two decades prior. It's also debatable as to whether it promotes feminism, as aside from Charlotte LeBoeuf being depicted in a positive light overall as noted above, it implies at one point that Tiana achieving her dreams of being a CEO is ultimately a negative due to the main villain Dr. Facilier using that to tempt her into aiding him.
|$104,400,899
|-
|''Pulp Fiction''
|1994
|R
|Despite saying the F-word in almost every sentence, the film (surprisingly) has a pro-Christian message as after being shot at, every bullet misses mob hit men Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega. Winnfield believes it was a divine intervention and message from God to stop his life of crime. His partner doesn't believe this but it's later proven to be true as he perished later on in the movie. Also has sadomasochistic homosexuals as the bad guys. And (sort of) has an anti-drug message as mob boss's girlfriend Mia Wallace is seen also overdosing (a negative side to drugs) on heroin.
|$107,928,762
|-
|''The Rescuers''
|1977
|G
|The villain in this movie is a capitalist pawn shop owner, who wants a rare diamond to make her rich, to add insult to injury they're Southerners. Also paints the United Nations in a positive light. On the other hand, the main villain is also a feminist, and the main human protagonist is shown praying for not only herself (even she has been kidnapped) but for all the kids in the orphanage (who have not been kidnapped). This is one of the rare Disney films feature a [[Christian]] character that's treated in a positive light.
|$29 million

|-
|''Robin Hood''
|1973
|G
|Animated Disney adaptation of the iconic story, depicting all of the characters as anthropomorphic animals. Although the story itself was based on [[Joseph Ritson]]'s revised version of the character that was in support of the Jacobin cause and thus was a liberal icon (steals from the rich, gives to the poor), the villain is Prince John who makes his money from taxes, suggesting Robin Hood is only giving money the government demanded back to people who actually worked for it. It also features a condemnation of government encroachment of the church, as a pivotal scene featured the Sheriff of Nottingham explicitly stealing a coin from the poor box and his later arresting Friar Tuck for trying to stop him, and the Sheriff's actions were clearly being framed in a horrible light.
|$32 million
|-
|''[[Rogue One: A Star Wars Story]]''
|2016
|PG-13
|A group of freedom fighters undertake a dangerous mission in an attempt to steal the plans for the Galactic Empire's ultimate weapon, the Death Star. Unlike the previous Star Wars films, the focus of this one is on soldiers on the battlefield, their goal to restore liberty to the Galaxy. This gives the movie a strong feeling of American patriotism, and could also be argued to show respect to the U.S. military. However, the screenwriters Chris Weitz and Gary Whitta made tweets that implied that they were trying to push the leftist Diversity agenda just after Trump won the presidency, as well as used a customized version of the Rebel Starbird logo with a safety pin attached, and one of the main characters, Saw Gerrera, was stated to be based on Marxist revolutionary [[Che Guevara]] and was treated in a (comparably) positive light.
|$1,043,133,586
|-
|''Saw''
|2004-2010, 2017
|R (Director's Cuts are NC-17)
|The franchise contains an anti-nihilist message, with the antagonist, John Kramer, also known as "the Jigsaw Killer," wishing for his victims to survive the "games" in which he places them, ultimately emerging with a better appreciation for their lives. For example, ''Saw'' condemns the adultery committed by Dr. Lawrence Gordon. ''Saw III'' focuses on the value of forgiveness, John having Jeff Denlon complete three tests involving the three people whom he blamed for the death of his young son. ''Saw IV'' contains a very strong message of letting go and letting people find salvation and redemption for themselves, an allusion to biblical passages about the subject. However, it could also be argued that Jigsaw is playing God with the value of human life, by bringing his test subjects to the very edge of death, forcing them to gravely hurt themselves, in order to survive. Furthermore, in ''Saw III'', one of his apprentices, Amanda Young, is revealed to have rigged traps to kill her victims, even if they successfully complete their games, as she no longer believes in Jigsaw's philosophy. However, John is shown clearly shown to be disgusted by Amanda's actions, though nevertheless trying to guide her to redemption, or at least his version of it. Other condemnations of nihilism include the clearly sociopathic depiction of corrupt Detective Mark Hoffman, the most important of Jigsaw's apprentices, as he, like Amanda, strays from John's philosophy and simply rigs traps to murder his victims, while also carrying out the games that John had planned before his death at the end of ''Saw III.''
|$953,421,276
|-
|''Shame''
|2011
|NC-17
|While the movie shows [[Hollywood Values]], such as sex addiction, in a negative light and is clearly anti-[[homosexual agenda]], as the main character reaches his lowest point by partaking in such acts, the film is graphic in its nature leaving one to question how conservative it really is.
|$3,909,002
|-
|''[[The Simpsons]] Movie''
|2007
|PG-13
|This feature based upon the long-running animated sitcom portrays the liberal [[Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] as a villainous and devious agency and the government in general as intrusive and corrupt. On the other hand, it celebrates [[environmentalism]] in the beginning.
|$183,135,014
|-
|''Soul Man''
|1986
|PG-13
|A white student cheats the [[affirmative action]] system, by pretending to be black in order to get the scholarship he needs for to pay for Harvard. Towards the end, it is revealed he took the scholarship away from someone who needed it as well (and is really black) because she has a son and is divorced at such a young age. The movie portyals the police as racist, and blames racism on many things, and seems to support the need for affirmative action. But on a conservative note, the film teaches the importance of hard work, and is also politically incorrect.
|$27,820,000
|-
|''[[Star Wars]]''
|1977-1983 (Original Trilogy); 1999-2005 (Prequel Trilogy); 2015-2019 (Sequel Trilogy)
|PG, PG-13 (Episode III & Episodes VII-IX)
|The well-known space opera series is mostly composed of simple truths about the triumph of good over evil, and in the case of ''Episode VI: Return of the Jedi'', redemption. However, ''Episode VI'' also contained some implied pro-[[Vietcong]] propaganda at George Lucas' behest via the Ewoks, as well as his later claiming that the entirety of the ''Star Wars'' saga from ''Episodes IV''-''VI'' was meant to be his means of protesting Vietnam (which is supported by a memo dating back to 1973 where he claimed the film was about "A large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters." It is also to be noted that this was not the first time he voiced support for the Vietcong as well as used film to push an anti-American/anti-War agenda, as he also initially played a role in the filming of ''Apocalypse Now''<ref>http://nypost.com/2014/09/21/how-star-wars-was-secretly-george-lucas-protest-of-vietnam/</ref>), and the re-release for ''Episode IV: A New Hope'' also had an infamous edit where it made it seem as though Greedo shot at Han first, with George Lucas later revealing he did the edit (or rather, falsely claimed it was always that way) as a means to promote gun control. Regarding the pro-Vietcong sentiment being pushed in ''Return of the Jedi'', former president [[Richard Nixon]] in his 1985 book ''No More Vietnams'' cited ''Return of the Jedi'' as ultimately one reason why America, at least by that time, had initially felt so guilty of their strength that they were unwilling to use it even to defend their freedom and that of others.<ref>''No More Vietnams'' by Richard Nixon, 1985 Chapter 1: The assertion that our very bigness is badness has infested our culture to a surprising degree. The creator of the phenomenally successful Star Wars series recently explained that the climactic scene in one of his moves - in which the evil “Empire’s” giant war machines are destroyed by fuzzy little good guys with wooden bows and arrows - was inspired by the Vietnam experience. No matter that in Vietnam the Communist “good guys” packed Soviet automatic rifles and, in 1975, rode state-of-the-art Russian tanks across the South Vietnamese border. The propaganda of disproportionate forces in Vietnam, the myth of small/good versus big/bad, did enough damage to help lose the war for the United States and the people of South Vietnam. Today it is one symptom of the Vietnam syndrome to the extent that it makes Americans ashamed of their power, guilty about being strong, and forgetful about the need to be willing to use their power to protect their freedom and the freedom of others.</ref>

The prequel trilogy also had some implied pot-shots at then-president George W. Bush and his War on Terror, and there was also an implied promotion of moral relativity in ''Revenge of the Sith'' (where Obi-Wan, when confronting Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the climax, stated in reply to Anakin's declaration that Obi-Wan is his enemy if he's not with him that "only a Sith deals in absolutes."). A similar promotion of moral relativity and postmodernism was shown in ''Return of the Jedi'' where Obi-Wan admitted that his claim that Vader killed Anakin Skywalker was "true from a certain point of view," as well as further elaborating his claim by stating that "[[Subjectivism|a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.]]" The same movie's ending also carries an implicit promotion of cannibalism. In addition, the Trade Federation and its motives in ''The Phantom Menace'' was crafted by George Lucas to be a negative response to the Republican Revolution of 1994, and in particular Newt Gingrich's Contract with America (with Gingrich himself being a partial namesake of the main villain, Viceroy Nute Gunray). ''Attack of the Clones'' and to a lesser extent ''Revenge of the Sith'' also had very blatant anti-war themes and a very negative portrayal of the military, as a large part of the plot involved creating a military for the republic (and in the case of ''Revenge of the Sith'', the near end of the Clone Wars), with the narrative strongly implying that even forming a military at all was somehow a threat to freedom. To a lesser extent, the Prequel trilogy also has a negative depiction of family values, since it's implied that even holding attachments to family or trying to start a family leads directly to turning to the Dark Side, with Yoda even stating that such acted as "the shadow of greed." Lucas, in an interview with Time Magazine, also made similar jabs on family when explaining Anakin's character arc and his eventually becoming Darth Vader, where he said "Because he [Anakin Skywalker] gets attached to things...He can't let go of his mother...his girlfriend...things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side because you fear that you're going to lose things. You fear you're not going to have the power you need."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20020923140712/http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/tfn.cgi?storyID=15712</ref>

In addition, the director for ''Episode VII: The Force Awakens'', [[J.J. Abrams]], admitted in a press release that he deliberately made Finn black in order to ensure diversity among the characters, hinting at it pushing the leftist [[diversity]] agenda.<ref>https://www.cnet.com/news/director-j-j-abrams-weighs-in-on-diversity-in-the-star-wars-universe/?_escaped_fragment_=#! Two audience members jointly asked Abrams whether -- given his track record of helping build a diverse cast as director of the "Star Trek" reboot films -- he could confirm if there will be more Asian characters in the Star Wars universe. Asian characters are few and far between in the Star Wars franchise -- one appears in the original trilogy's last film, ''Return of the Jedi'', but for only four seconds before dying in a fiery explosion. Abrams said that while he won't be casting future films in the franchise, because he's directing only ''Episode VII'', he did include Asian characters in ''The Force Awakens'', which opened December 18. "I think it's important people see themselves represented in film," Abrams said. "I think it's not a small thing."</ref> Also, the film also hints at a militant [[feminist]] agenda by having Leia act as general and Rey not allowing anyone to save her, something that conservative commentator John Nolte mentioned was a [[detraction]] for the film.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/12/17/star-wars-the-force-awakens-review-j-j-abrams-repents-for-the-sins-of-george-lucas/</ref> In addition, the ending award ceremony in ''A New Hope'' was deliberately modeled after the stadium scene from the infamous Nazi movie propaganda ''The Triumph of the Will''. Ian McDiarmid, the actor who played the saga's main villain [[Emperor Palpatine]], had also implied in an interview with ''The Guardian'' around the time ''Revenge of the Sith'' was released that George Lucas had deliberately made the films for primarily eight-year olds specifically to indoctrinate them into Lucas' leftist view of the world.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/nov/07/theatre1 He [McDiarmid] also bristles at the notion that the Star Wars films are totally hollow entertainments. "I remember when I sat there in the Evil Emperor's swivel chair and George [Lucas] said things like 'does it remind you of the Oval office?' And I realised that at that time Richard Nixon was in his mind. 

"And I see that in the Guardian's review of the DVD - not favourable, of course - mention is made of the fact that there are lines that sound really contemporary. But the reviewer decided that was by chance: no, no, no, no. Entirely by design. 

"George knew that eight-year-olds, for whom these films are primarily intended, are very impressionable, and he wanted to make the right impression. So the whole film is about the unnecessary rise of fascism. In other words: watch out, they're all after your freedom, particularly when they're talking about defending freedom. Without getting over-extended about it, that is at the heart of these movies."</ref>

[[Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi]] also received strong criticism for its apparent 'SJW' bias<ref>Toto, Christian (December 19, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/19/last-jedi-critics-mostly-conservative/ As ‘Star Wars’ fans cheer, conservative film critics point out problems with ‘Last Jedi’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 20, 2017.</ref> It is also speculated that the leftist POV pushing caused fans to boycott the 2018 film [[Solo: A Star Wars Story]].<ref>https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/967205/Star-Wars-Han-Solo-FLOP-Last-Jedi-fan-BACKLASH-boycott-box-office-cast-sequel-cameo</ref> J.J. Abrams also heavily implied that the then-in-development final episode ''The Rise of Skywalker'' will feature homosexuals as part of "representation",<ref>https://variety.com/2019/film/news/star-wars-finn-poe-not-boyfriends-lgbtq-representation-1203423286/</ref> which was ultimately confirmed in pre-release screenings, where two members of the Resistance, both female, engaged in an on-screen kiss while celebrating a major victory against the First Order.<ref>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-rise-skywalker-features-franchise-s-first-same-sex-kiss-1263256</ref>
|$460,998,007
|-
|''Starship Troopers''
|1997
|R
|Although it overall depicts the Military in a protagonistic light and arguably is pro-war and pro-military, the director of the film, Paul Verhoeven, implied it was actually supposed to push an anti-military, anti-war message where it implied that America during the Cold War were automatically fascists simply because they are entering war, and specifically stated it was "a natural evolution for post-World War II America." In addition, to reinforce Verhoeven's message, he deliberately modeled various scenes after ''Triumph of the Will'' and other pro-Nazi propaganda scenes, as well as modeled the protagonists' uniforms after the uniforms utilized by the Nazis (i.e., the character Carl, played by Neil Patrick Harris, wearing a uniform that was modeled after the [[SS]]). When asked by Michael Ironside, who was one of the people who had a role in the movie and had read the original book, about why he made the movie despite Verhoeven's leftist politics, he answered "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships, but it's only good for killing ******* bugs!" (note that fascism is not "right wing", it is left wing, so Verhoeven's incorrect regarding which wing the Nazis/fascists were part of).
|$54,814,377
|-
|''Sudden Death''
|1995
|R
|Disgraced fire fighter now becomes a laughingstock fire marshal uncovers an terrorist plot at a Hockey game plans to redeem himself and protect his children and the Vice President from said terrorists. However they're not Islamic, which may have been because the film was trying to be politically correct.
|$20,350,171
|-
|''Super''
|2010
|R
|A short-order cook becomes a superhero after a vision from God. He frequently turns to prayer and a Christian television show for guidance. Even though his wife leaves him for a drug dealer, he remains loyal to her for the whole picture. At the same time, foul language, violence, and brief nudity scenes are included.
|$327,716
|-
|''Team America: World Police''
|2004
|R
|While it is clearly pro-military, pro-America, and anti-Hollywood, the movie is riddled with liberal values, including toilet humor and vulgar language throughout. The movie's foul-mouthed theme song favors abortion, slavery, pornography, and Democrats, while having no positive reaction to Republicans, which makes sense because the screenplay was written by the creators of ''[[South Park]]'' and ''The Book of Mormon''.
|$32,786,074
|-
|''The Terminator''
|1984
|R
|Takes the side of humanity in this man vs machine battle. However, it is anti-war, anti-Capitalist and comes from liberal atheist James Cameron, in which he imagines the military being the cause of the downfall of man.
|$78.3 million
|-
|''Terminator 2: Judgement Day''
|1991
|R
|The second film in the Terminator Franchise by Liberal director James Cameron. While it does have anti-war and anti-capitalist themes, and also dabbles in pro-feminist views via Sarah Connor's change in overall character, it is also pro-family. John Connor reconnects with his mother and the Terminator who serves as his protector becomes like a father to him, so much so that John cries when the Terminator chooses to sacrifice himself to ensure that Skynet would never be built.
|$523.7 million
|-
|''[[Titanic]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Every life has value, and the most powerful men give up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first, while the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized. The film broke the record in movie revenues before the environmentalist nightmare that was ''Avatar''. However, ''Titanic'' gives some hints at a pro-socialist view, and a key scene involving Rose being drawn in the nude is evocative of pornography.
|$600,779,824
|-
|''[[Trainspotting]]''
|1996
|R
|It's been debatable if the film is anti-drug.
|$16,491,080
|-
|''U-571''
|2000
|PG-13
|Had a plot which was based on the first capture of a [[German]] [[Enigma machine]] in [[World War Two]]. Despite the film being patriotic to America, the facts are wrong as the Enigma machine was captured by the [[British]] in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.
|$77,122,415
|-
|''The Twilight Saga''
|2008-2012
|PG-13
|Starred by anti-military liberal [[Kristen Stewart]] and glorifies [[vampire|vampires]], but it also makes fun of [[public school culture]] and [[modernism]] while promoting [[abstinence]] until marriage, traditional courtship and marriage, and the [[pro-life]] movement. It was written by a [[Mormon]].
|$1,365,922,346
|-
|''Van Helsing''
|2004
|PG-13
|Thanks to [[Hollywood values]], Van Helsing isn't portrayed as the Christian character he should be, but the film still gets its good vs. evil message across. As well as portraying the Catholic church in a positive light. The director Stephen Sommers has made conservative films ''The Mummy Returns'' and ''G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra'' though.
|$120,177,084<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=vanhelsing.htm</ref>
|-
|''Wall-E''
|2008
|G
|The movie shows the dangers of big government (BNL), however it is also anti-capitalist and pro-environmentalism as BNL is a corporation.
|$223,808,164
|-
|''The Way We Were''
|1973
|PG
|Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women. Stars uber-liberal [[Barbra Streisand]].
|$49,919,870
|-
|''We're the Millers''
|2013
|R
|A drug dealer, stripper, runaway, and average loser pretend to be a family to sneak marijuana out of Mexico. However they learn the value and importance of family. The villains of the movie are all drug gang men, the film also features a stripper scene, and whether or not the film is anti-drug in the end is debatable.
|$150,394,119
|-
|''Yours Mine and Ours''
|2005
|PG
|The widower father of a conservative family marries a widowed mother of a liberal family. Their two difference lifestyles contradict with each other, and the film does not really decide whose lifestyle is better. On the one hand, at one point, the liberal children fool the conservative children into thinking there is a house fire, so they can have the bathrooms for themselves. On the other hand, the children work together in another scene and use conservative tactics to end bullying without the help of an authority figure. In the end, the children learn to put their differences aside and realize that family is what matters more.
|$53,412,862
|}

Please add more!

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
* [[Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows]]

[[Category:Essays about Liberals]]
[[Category:Cinema]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category:Worst Liberal Movies]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Worst Liberal Movies}}

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T02:35:38Z

MAGAViking: /* Help */

== Help ==
I'm trying to save an edit to the [[Essay:Worst Liberal Movies]] page, and when I hit save the page just refreshes. I'm filling out the CAPTCHA correctly, so I don't understand why it isn't working. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 21:24, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
:Nevermind, it saved now. I think the CAPTCHA is glitching. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 21:26, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
::Have you been redirected to “[[403.shtml]]”? That’s the usual glitch that happens here. [[User:Sievert 81|Sievert 81]] ([[User talk:Sievert 81|talk]]) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
:::No, the edit page would just refresh. No errors, or anything. I entered the correct CAPTCHA multiple times, and put an edit summary and it didn't change anything. It wasn't until the CAPTCHA changed that the page saved. That's why I think it was the CAPTCHA. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
::::What was the captcha, and what was the answer? I’ve been exempt from it for a while, but I can try to see.
:::::"Who was the first president of the United States". I kept putting George Washington, but it wasn't working. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 22:30, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
::::::It was referring to the first name, not the first name and last name. the answer to that one is “George”. [[User:Sievert 81|Sievert 81]] ([[User talk:Sievert 81|talk]]) 22:31, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
:::::::That was the one thing I didn't try. I tried "Washington", and "George Washington", kek. Thanks. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 22:35, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T02:30:33Z

MAGAViking: /* Help */

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T02:16:36Z

MAGAViking: /* Help */

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T02:15:14Z

MAGAViking: /* Help */

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T01:26:44Z

MAGAViking: /* Help */ +comment

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2020-10-25T01:25:26Z

MAGAViking: splitting my comment into a new section

I am removing Scarface because it is a remake of a 1932 classic (which had the same plot, and definitely wasn't "liberal"), it in no way "glorifies" gangsterism and drug abuse since at the end of the film it shows the consequences of Tony Montanna's life of crime and drugs (He loses his wife, his best friend and his sister as a result of his reckless ways) and finally, the film is a classic. Even if it is liberal its still one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time and definitely doesn't belong on a list of movies that are the "worst". And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.
:''And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.'' Really? Well I am reverting and blocking you - whether you like it or not. Come back with a better, more collaborative, attitude next time. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:36, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

The name of this article should be changed to "Most overtly liberal movies" since several of the mentioned films are very well made and thus good movies.
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Back to the Future and Mrs. Doubtfire are also on this, I am going to remove them both because they are very successful films and have become classics, and definitely do not belong on a list of movies considered the worst.--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:36, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

== questionable entries ==

can a new category for movies that are questionably liberal be added. "The Social Network" is not overtly liberal. In the protagonist in a negative light, showing how Facebook ruins his life (his best friend sues him, he seems depressed, etc). It depicts everyone involved as jerks. It is questionably liberal because some liberals like the mean spirited Zuckerberg. Also, V for Vendetta is a libertarian movie. It is anti big government (and I would say anti communism). However it is anti religion, so again, questionably liberal
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

If you're going to include a classic film like "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" then you had best rename the article to "liberal movies", as most of these movies are actually brilliant films and are by no means "the worst". But then again the "Best Conservative Movies" list has some dreadful films on it like "Space Jam" and "The Room". This site seems to have a very liberal definition of the term "liberal", and an even more liberal definition of the words "worst" and "best".
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 09:42, 13 April 2012 (EST)

:Disagreements about a few of the entries in each list is to be expected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::If entries do not reflect the general opinion of Conervapedia users then why aren't they removed? No justification for the inclusion of "The Meaning of Life" has been given. It's inclusion on the list is very dubious. This list previously included classic films such as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Scarface", which I removed without being reinstated afterwards. Why not remove "The Meaning Of Life"?
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 21:13, 14 April 2012 (EST)
:::Regarding ''V for Vendetta'', actually, most of the film was left-wing. The original comic may have been libertarian (showing the negative consequences of both totalitarianism and anarchy), but the actual film promoted full out anarchy without covering the negatives. Also, technically, it was supposed to be anti-Nazi, as the Norsefire party was meant to emulate Nazi Germany (which even the left hates). And I have read that there was more pro-communist messages in the film anyways, though I might have to dig it out. Actually, I think the Wachowski Brothers, or at least Larry/Lana Wachowski, were self-confessed Marxists. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 23:31, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:I removed the ''Frozen'' entry, namely because the reason for it being included was simply because of what an obscure pastor and a blog post stated. I'm against the gay agenda, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if Disney churned it out now, but really, John Nolte of Breitbart, who is not only conservative, but in his own words, is very good at spotting Hollywood leftist agendas from a hundred yards away, had viewed ''Frozen'' and could not pick up on any agendas in the film, certainly not the homosexual agenda. At best, the only "gay" it pushed was making people smile, what "gay" originally meant before the homosexuals hijacked the term. Here's the article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/13/Disneys-frozen-is-not-homosexual-propaganda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:39, 11 April 2014 (EDT)

==The Life of Brian==
I will not stand for this film's inclusion on this list, it should be deleted immediately. Perhaps you should actually watch the film for yourself before making silly assumptions about it. BRIAN IS NOT JESUS! He is not portrayed as a Christ-like figure, the Pythons have made it very clear in interviews and documentaries that the film was not made to mock Jesus, or his followers; it simply makes fun of people who don't think for themselves and rely on what other people say, much like the critics of the film, who blasted the film as "blasphemous" on the basis of what other people who hadn't seen the film said. The fact that we are debating this in 2012 is absolutely ludicrous. I could name many other films that were a lot more blasphemous that aren't on this list. The fact that it is on a list of "worst movies" is even more insulting; Even if you were offended by the movie, you can't deny the great wit and satire that is found in this film. The reference to it being "anti-semetic" is just plain untrue.--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:30, 29 August 2012 (EST)

== Bestiality in Avatar? ==

If I recall correctly, in ''The Lord of the Rings'', the human protagonist Aragorn has a "creepy" romance with an Elvish woman. While I am in favour of Avatar's inclusion on this list, I find that particular criticism a bit bizarre. --[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:18, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:I know this is an old topic, but I digress... At least with Lord of the Rings, the Elves were extremely similar enough to humans to pass as such (only difference being that elves had pointy ears). Avatar's situation, however, has him striking a romance with an alien that clearly doesn't even look remotely human (probably the closest thing to them being human being that they were bipeds), so you can probably see why that would be considered bestiality. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 19:00, 21 January 2014 (EST)

== Jackass??? ==
Not to mention the fact a lot of activists use Steve0 and Johnny Knoxville as a political and 'ethical' examples (SteveO's vegan and climate change activism) as well as the almost torturous stunts, that (in my opinion) is pretty dang immoral.--[[User:Man O Wisdom|Man O Wisdom]] ([[User talk:Man O Wisdom|talk]]) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (EST)[[User:Man O Wisdom]] 13:21, 26 January 2020 (CT)

Why is ''Jackass: The Movie'' a liberal movie? Its completely unpolitical.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 15:10, 1 January 2014 (EST)

:You can remove it if you like. But everything has a political slant or effect, even if a slight one. If a movie leads people away from the [[Bible]] or conservative values, for example, then it does have a political effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 1 January 2014 (EST)
::But Jackass has no political effect and it does not lead people away from the Bible.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:04, 2 January 2014 (EST)

== Elysium is in a league of its own and deserves its own page. ==

So, I'd like to mention how stupidly liberal Elysium is. In fact, it's so horribly liberal it's conservative. I just have to rant because I've had one of the most horrible times of my life watching that movie.

Spoilers obviously

*See the people living on Earth only seem to be criminals or employed by the wealthy. The wealthy live happily because they are not overpopulating in their domain. In fact, it seems the wealthy can make themselves younger again, and suffer no death where they live, because they've learned to properly balance their consumption, population levels, laws, all the while not aging, etc.

*Scientifically speaking, when the main character enters a "radiation vent" or whatever, he gets radiated by an error in the machine he's stuck in. Thing is, radiation doesn't just "come and go" the way the movie plays it. It's either there in which he was radiated the moment he entered that section, or he was faking it to begin with. And why exactly are they radiating the cargo? It's in a wooden crate meaning the radiation would seep in.

*Criminals illegally break into the border and it seems there are virtually no defense systems whatsoever to prevent this from happening. This seems stupid, because it would obviously need defenses from meteors and comets. Their only "defense" is an evil homeless guy with a bazooka that can shoot space ships from Earth.

*The evil plan didn't make sense. They put "the key" to Elysium in a guy's head to modify Elysium to serve another rich person, but the only way it can work is if they kill the person who has the key. How exactly did he get the key in his head from Earth, and how did the poor people steal it?

*The rich seem to only not want to share "free healthcare" because of one reason: they're mean. The rich are portrayed as soulless monsters who have nothing better to do than be mean. It doesn't seem to explain a logical reason for why they're not sharing this health system which perfectly heals all wounds at seemingly no cost.

*The only person who seems to have a job without relying on wealthy people is some old lady who owns pigs in a cart. The rest are criminals because they themselves are incapable of supporting one another through real work and independent job creation.

*The "health pods" cured a guy who died from a head on collision from a grenade and turned elderly young. But they cant fix the main character? The brain of one guy literally exploded and he's still curable.

*At the end of the movie, the robots are programmed to identify everyone as a citizen of Elysium. The wealthy have pale looks on their faces. For some odd reason, the robots export the healthcare pods away from Elysium, as well as bringing in more people to Elysium. What makes the people there pale isn't the fact that they "can't be mean anymore" as some liberals might assume, but because they can no longer guarantee their own survival on the resources they've earned. And once it's gone, it'll be gone for good. They'll soon reach a mountainous population, unable to feed themselves due to a loss of resources at the colossal level of immigration and unaging pods and a constantly high birthrate.

*What bothers me the most about Elysium isn't the fact that this movie is the political opinion of a British guy about the US, or even how stupidly bias the movie was. What bothered me the most was the critical acclaim the movie got. I feel that if I made a movie about how demonic creatures are entering a holy land of peace: The evil liberdemons who want nothing more than to take all of our wealth, happiness, and means of defending ourselves for their personal interest and kill whomever they feel like, while the main character sacrifices himself to produce a powerful border-barrier that eliminates the ability for soulless liber-demons to cross... I'd be called a bigot. The reviews for Elysium seem to be nothing but positive, with people saying, "it makes you think," "behind all the action is a moral," and all this other crap. Why is this movie held in such high esteem? It does its best to portray anyone conservative as evil while liberals are portrayed as victims and innocents.

Of all things the disgusting experience I had watching that movie has made me more conservative than ever in my life.
[[User:Patriotic|Patriotic]]
:Gonna have to agree with you in this one. Not only it attacks capitalism but it promotes Open Borders. and the Irony is that Neil Blomkamp was surprised with the correlation. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Renaming section ==

Would it be a good idea to rename the '''Anti-Religious''' section to '''Anti-Christian'''?
I say this because the comment for ''Cloud Atlas'' in that section begins, "Supports the idea of reincarnation and features anti-Christian undertones."
Some non-Christian religions support the idea of reincarnation, and I would think most non-religious liberals don't, except the new-age hippy types. It seems that films which are anti-Christian but not secular should be included in the section, but the section heading doesn't reflect that. [[User:ConsMovies|ConsMovies]] 11:43, 9 January 2015 (EST)

== PRothan's removals ==

I know little about these movies, as I watch very few, but it seems that [[User:PRothan|PRothan]] is removing an awful lot of entries, especially for a new member. Are we sure that there removals are appropriate? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:07, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
:PRothan removed Edward Scissorhands from this web page. Edward Scissorhands was pretty much endorsed by Christiananswers.net with a 4 out of 5 stars rating.[http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2005/edwardscissorhands1990.html]. Christiananswers.net is a Bible believing Christian website. My guess is that PRothan may be doing a lot of helpful pruning from this web page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
::Okay, good! I hate to be cynical, but when someone creates and account and begins removing large amounts of text, I get suspicious. Glad to hear it then, and thanks for the second opinion! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:44, 12 May 2016 (EDT)

== The Princess and the Frog ==

I don't really know why The Princess and the Frog is on here. If anything, it promotes conservative values. The main character has been taught the value of hard work by her father and is working hard to save enough money to start her own business, and the prince, who starts the movie as an amoral hedonist who just wants everything given to him, gradually learns the value of sacrifice and caring for other people. It's true that one of the characters who helps them is a "blind voodoo lady", and not Christian, but she's no less Christian than all the fairy godmothers in all the old Disney movies. If no one objects, I'm going to remove this entry. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 18:45, 31 May 2016 (EDT)

I agree with Whizkid. (BTW, I also thought Brave was pretty good. I don't see how it's anti-conservative. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

:Ah, let's see, there's the fact that it promoted feminism to such an extent that even when Merida was actually given the choice regarding her grooms hand in marriage, she still pitched a fit, and mostly didn't even want to get married because it would have interfered with her archery skills (not to mention didn't even end with marriage anyways), the women were depicted as the "wise" ones while the father is depicted as a bumbling idiot. Oh, and Merida even attempted to outright ''drug'' her mom to have her see things her way (sure, she didn't plan on turning her into a bear, but she definitely didn't plan anything good for her mom beforehand anyway). There's definitely a whole lot of liberal stuff in there, far more than truly conservative stuff. Yes, it may have its following. So does Star Trek, and that's pretty blatantly a liberal franchise regardless of whether conservatives are fans of it or not. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't know about that. Merida was only a teenager. Besides, it's not like you are required to support the orders of your parents in marrying someone according to the Bible to the point where you are ordered whom to marry. What they said was that she would marry whomever she loved. Forcing someone to marry someone that they probably wouldn't even love would be a bad idea. While it may have been done in biblical and even medieval times, it no means justifies it as good or resisting arranged marriages as bad.

As for drug her mom, I don't even think Merida knew that magic dessert did other than help change things. Besides, Merida WAS willing to actually go along with one of the arranged marriages in order to fix things but her own mother decided to give her a break and let her pick whom she wanted to marry. At first, the clan leaders were angry but then their sons all said that they actually agreed with the queen that arranged marriages were bad and that this "You should get to decide whom you marry for yourself." idea was a good one. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, your argument of the men being depicted as idiots, while generally true, falls apart with the triplet brothers. They actually helped Merida and her mother out of a couple of jams and were quite crucial in helping at times. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Do you think maybe it should be written to say "that in general the men are depicted as idiots" instead? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:03, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Apparently, you hadn't noticed that there were three people competing for her hand in marriage, and that her mom actually DID allow her to choose between them. That was a whole lot more than Jasmine and Aurora got, anyway. And as far as the cake, when it alters her mom's state of mind, that essentially means she planned on drugging her. Either way, this acts as a better explanation than I can muster: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/06/22/brave-movie-review/#comment-565161710 Though, fine, generally depicted as stupid. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Just remembered that this topic was about The Princess and the Frog. Well, for my two cents, I really don't have much of a comment one way or another (I don't think Louisiana Voodoo would have made the film particularly conservative, especially when it was practiced by both good and bad people), but on the other hand, though I'll admit I haven't seen the film at all, I'm not sure how it had anti-war stuff in it (if anything, Tiana looked up to her dad, an implied World War I veteran). As far as Tiana's feminism, to be fair to her, since her dad was dead, I'm not sure her trying to run a business was indicative of feminism since, being the oldest of the family, she kind of needs to work in order to provide for her family. Besides, I'd argue that Belle from Beauty and the Beast (the animated version, not the live action remake) came across as a LOT more feminist than Tiana did DESPITE not holding a job at all. Lastly, you have to admit, it's the first feature-length Disney film to not only show a traditional wedding, but treat it in a positive manner as well (before this one, the closest we got to marriage being treated in a positive light or even shown at all is in ''Aladdin and the King of Thieves'' and possibly ''Mulan II''), so that's actually a pretty good conservative message ESPECIALLY considering the anti-traditional marriage messaging that was pushed by various Disney films since ''Beauty and the Beast'' in 1991). Of course, whether it does get moved is ultimately up to Andy Schlafly (and he might need to state exactly WHERE some of the liberal stuff is at, particularly the anti-war bit.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:23, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Just adding some thoughts. ==

I believe that the movie That's Way I Am should be added to this list. It seems OK at first, but it completely goes backwards off tracks from the main plot to shoehorn in the [[Homosexual Agenda]], and shows the only Christian, right-wing characters as backwards bigots who have raised bullies. Ultimately it promotes [[Liberal Censorship|censorship]] and [[Homosexuality|immorality]]. Please respond with your thoughts.[[User:ILOVEJESUS2|ILOVEJESUS2]] ([[User talk:ILOVEJESUS2|talk]]) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (EDT)
:I have never heard of the movie, but if it is clearly a liberal movie, feel free to add it. I recommend adding sources, though. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:51, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

== "Spare Parts" should not be here. ==

In my opinion, the film "Spare Parts" should not be here. It shows a conservative moral of a hard-working underdog, underfunded team facing problems beating well-funded college professional teams.
:Be bold.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 13:16, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

== Should we really have a debatable if liberal section? ==

Should we really have a list of those films that are debatable if liberal, which is the same list as those on the debatable of conservative? There are some really great and popular films, on that list such as Back to The Future, Jaws, Mrs. Doubtfire, Scarface, Star Wars, which are all beloved classics, (some of them were recently removed from the other list those). But don’t think we should have a duplicate list, on two different pages. It is like saying when it’s on the greatest conservative films list these films are the best except for a couple flaws, but to also have it here it like saying, these films are the worst except for a couple of good aspects. Every film has it good aspect and bad aspects, no film is perfect. Also some of these films on this list are not here because there debatable if conservative or liberal. Such as Grease it is listed here because it’s debatable or not if it has enough conservative aspects to be conservative such as it says “Some conservative messages and no feminism or other political correctness; mocks public school and even television during the 1950s. Followed in 1982 by a much panned sequel (Grease 2).” That should not appear on a list that debatable if liberal. (Unless you are talking about its panned sequel, but that is whole different movie, and should appear separately). I suggest we remove that part of the list, or at least make some changes. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (EST)

:It doesn't matter whether the movies are popular or not, that doesn't put them above scrutiny. While certain movies may be seen as beloved classics, like Star Wars, that doesn't mean that the creators didn't deliberately put liberal elements in them (and George Lucas absolutely did make the Ewoks analogous to the Vietcong, he's said so more than once). As Ben Shapiro says in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMYCnI5kz0| this video] "By all means, enjoy television. I do! But remember, the people making Television don't merely want to entertain you, they want to influence you. They want you to think like they think." The same is true for movie makers. You need only look at things the movie makers have said about their creations. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:48, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::Heck, not just the Ewoks. If the 1973 development notes and ''How Star Wars Conquered the Universe'' is to be believed, he even based the Rebel Alliance itself on the Vietcong and North Vietnamese army. And don't get me started on Beauty and the Beast, where it's made very clear from Jeffrey Katzenberg and especially Linda Woolverton and Don Hahn that the film was trying to push the feminist agenda. And yes, if any movie has writers deliberately trying to implement liberal values, we DO have to note it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:19, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::A lot of these things are not self-evident to a lot of people and they go over their heads. For example, George Lucas's intentions in Return of the Jedi were definitely out of touch with the time. It was released in 1983, when everyone's mind was on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how Americans were behind the scenes helping the rebels (who unfortunately became the Taliban). Realistically, the Battle of Endor is more analogous to that than what George Lucas intended since what he intended was based on a biased, inaccurate liberal interpretation of the Vietnam War. The thing is though that many, if not most people apply "Death of The Author" when interpreting these movies which often results in them not seeing the liberal elements in them (except they don't do the same for the rare movies made by conservative creators with a conservative motive behind them). [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 10:40, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::Well, to be fair, Osama bin Laden's group was independent of our funding if the 9/11 Commission Report is to be believed. Besides, apparently Lucas' boasting about the Ewoks' inspiration at the very least was common-knowledge enough even back then that Richard Nixon explicitly referenced that in his book No More Vietnams in 1985. And as far as "death of the author", I want to believe that, but unfortunately, I'm not sure if such can be applied in this case, especially not after the Prequel Trilogy where Lucas didn't even attempt to hide his leftist sympathies in the movie (and besides, I've already seen how death of the author is a failed concept after Hideo Kojima had [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usYtK3d2ydk two guys gushing over Che Guevara in ''Peace Walker''] despite them not being the types, either in that game or, heck, prior game appearances from them, ever indicating they were the type to worship such garbage (oh, and one of them was idolized as basically being George Washington by one of his sons in one of the prior games, and said son [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNhyvsEqVY certainly idolized the latter].). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:20, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::The thing is, a lot of people who make the movies have some of the right ideas, but apply them to the wrong people. I already mentioned how the Empire from Star Wars was more realistically analogous to the Soviet Union, but also Palpatine from the prequel trilogy was more analogous to how Hitler came to power by slowly chipping away at German Democracy and consolidating power. Also, think about how much more Barack Obama consolidated power with his executive orders (which liberals who protested the Patriot Act ignored). And then there's Metal Gear Solid and the "patriots." There really are people like that, except it's the Deep State and the Media-Entertainment Complex, not the Military-Industrial complex as Kojima asserts. Ironically, the Big Boss antagonist from the original Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 was actually more like the REAL Che Guevara. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:58, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::::Yeah, I'm still not too sure about that. Lucas did imply that the Old Republic was analogous to Robespierre's France, after all (I believe his exact words were to the effect of "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon?", and that was during the 2005 Cannes Film Festival), and that was closer to how Nazi Germany was like (and he also said in an interview with Charlie Rose that he thought Soviet film production had more "artistic freedom", as in, the same film production stuff that if you get on the leader's bad side you get shot, even if you did what he asked, heck, even if he actually LIKES your works as Shteyman learned the hard way, if The Death of Stalin is to be believed, is somehow better than the Hollywood system which, while having risks of losing money if you fail, at least doesn't land you with a bullet in your head). Not to mention, Palpatine's rise to power isn't even close to being similar to Nazi Germany. Maybe if the Republic had been forced to pay reparations during a prior war that they lost, and Palpatine had a ragtag bunch of militant homosexual socialists basically beating up bystanders to vote for him instead of communists, and basically being about as unstable as Kylo Ren, then I'd see more similarities, but as it is, it really doesn't look even slightly similar. Also, the Expanded Universe, the old one anyways, actually mentioned that the Corporate Sector Authority was largely given free reign by the Empire, the latter expanding its territory and even was largely hands off with it being implied that actually benefitted the galactic economy, and don't get me started on the immunity spheres (none of which Nazi Germany would have allowed, let alone the Soviets. In fact, if you were to suggest such concepts to the higher ups, whether Stalin or Lenin or Khrushchev, or anyone like that, they'd probably order for you to be hauled to the gulags at best and at worst shot on sight.). If anything, the Rebels boycotting the CSA comes closer to what the Soviets would have done. And besides, apparently Lucas also insisted that Saw Gerrera be based on Che Guevara, and if the official book Star Wars and History is to be believed, Mao Zedong's concept of a People's War also formed the basis of the Rebel Alliance (and Mao was even WORSE than Stalin and the Soviets regarding carnage, let alone Hitler and the Nazis).
::::::As far as Big Boss, yeah, having looked through the MSX2 games, he really didn't come across as being like Che at all. Unlike Che, who literally had to be muzzled by Khrushchev to stop him from causing nuclear war by nuking America during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Big Boss didn't seem to even try to launch nukes. Build them, sure, but most of the world did that. Heck, Snake wasn't even sent in to stop Metal Gear in MG2 unlike the first game or later games, he was sent in to basically rescue an abducted researcher and his alternate fuel formula. And then MGS1 just retcons the whole "Third Zero" thing anyways, basically killing off any bad elements of Big Boss afterward. And besides, Big Boss had a perfect opportunity to emulate his "idol" in the second ending of Peace Walker with ZEKE and Paz's hijacking of it to basically give her the goahead to launch a nuke on the Eastern Seaboard and frame MSF, just as Che intended to do with the CMC, yet he didn't. If anything, he risked his life to stop her. If any Metal Gear character came closer to acting like Che Guevara, it was Colonel Volgin, who actually DID attempt to cause World War III and even went as far as to actually launch a nuke to do so (not to mention was pretty much a sadistic bullying coward like Che, though that being said, even HE had more honor and courage than the real Che, who died begging like a dog), or ironically enough, Hot Coldman, who also attempted to start a nuclear war. And don't get me started on how Miller was even LESS likely to be a Che fanboy than Big Boss was, and yet he somehow came across as being even more of one than him at the same time. Besides, regarding the Patriots, Kojima basically made it clear they represented America and that we were the bad guys, in his Grand Game Plan, and then we get into his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay in Ground Zeroes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 12:23, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oiq9zFHHdw&t=830s This] is a typical example of people who are in serious denial about how there are in fact liberal elements in classic entertainment. Also, people who know REAL history and don't understand liberal Hollywood's extremely distorted view of history could easily miss what the filmmakers are attempting to make their movies analogous to, since it's actually not like what they really were. For example, Kojima, like so many liberals who wear those stupid Che t-shirts, has a very wrong idea of who Che Guevara really was. What Big Boss and Miller are hero-worshiping is that false strawman, not the real Che. The Hollywood liberals who advocate Socialism make Socialism look like what they think it is, but people who actually know what it really is don't see the parallel. For example, I grew up knowing what the Soviet Union and China were actually like, so I didn't get the fact that Star Trek's Federation depicts what Gene Roddenberry thought they were. The thing that I found the most bothersome was how the future was secularized under the idea of "we've outgrown such primitive superstitions." It wasn't until finding resources like Conservapedia that I learned just how off-the-rails these people are. Most laymen don't understand the overall leftist philosophy and how it has affected so many people throughout history. I think Dinesh D'souza needs to make a documentary explaining the influence of leftist ideology on Hollywood. He should call it "Commiewood" or something. I think this essay needs to have some of this kind of information in the intro explaining why this essay exists.[[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:21, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::Yeah, that video you linked reminds me, we REALLY need to update the links on that site so that at the very least, there's a backup copy to thwart claims that we use nonexistent links. Too bad the search area of Archive.org is screwy right now, getting to a 404 error if I try to type any links in, so we actually can't do it right now (and believe me, I actually tried doing that. I don't get it, it's been screwy with intermittent periods of working since I think October).
::::::::And honestly, regarding Kojima, considering that's the same guy who not only mentioned the Katyn Forest Massacre and accurately pinned the blame on the Soviets, but also mentioned that America even before the Cuban Missile Crisis' conclusion was already planning to get rid of the Turkey silos anyway due to being rendered obsolete by nuclear subs in Metal Gear Solid 3 (which is information that's not likely to be taught at school, especially not the leftist-dominated schools), I'm doubtful he's got a "wrong idea" of what Che's like, since that would imply he was merely ignorant of the real Che. If anything, its more likely that he knows what Che's truly like, yet is DELIBERATELY pushing a false image of Che on the masses, which is even worse (almost Walter Duranty-levels worse). If he truly had been ignorant, he'd probably push the USSR as being the best thing since sliced bread like most leftists, or at least better than America (especially in MGS3). And to be fair, Roddenberry did base the Federation more on the United Nations than on the USSR and/or China, not that it really mattered since the UN was still garbage and a Trojan Horse Marxist organization from the get go, even with its more positive spin among the masses especially back then. And maybe most current Hollywood leftists are a bit ignorant about what actual socialism is like, but based on some stuff the Rebels did in various EU stuff like, I don't know, slaughtering the Imperial Palace staff in Children of the Jedi and doing a show trial for a Grand Admiral after Endor, not to mention boycotting the Corporate Sector Authority, I'd argue that Lucas at least does have some idea of what communism/socialism is actually like [he certainly was knowledgeable enough about Karl Marx to quote him if Skywalking is of any indication]. Heck, he even seemed to be fully aware of the Vietcong being a terrorist group if [https://youtu.be/Nxl3IoHKQ8c this clip] from James Cameron's History of Sci-Fi on AMC is of any indication.
::::::::I also agree that D'Souza really needs to do a "Commiewood"-type film exposing the leftist dreck in that industry right now, maybe also something similar with the educational system. Of course, he probably should also do a film that exposes the true nature of the French Revolution, since that's what both the USSR and Nazi Germany tie back to directly, heck, democracy itself (since democracy and socialism are one and the same, joined at the hip since the French Revolution).
::::::::Also agree that it needs some measure of an introduction to explain why this essay is necessary. You can always ask NorthWest for help creating the intro, he was largely responsible for a similar introduction on Essay: Worst Liberal TV Shows where he tied it to the Rural Purge. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::Strange thing about Peace Walker though. The Russian character Vladimir Zadornov is depicted as a bad guy, and yet, despite the fact that the Soviets were in fact backing the Nicaraguan Sandanistas, the Sandanistas in the game turn against Zadornov. Very strange indeed. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:10, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::My understanding of liberals in the entertainment industry was that they always had good intentions but bad ideas. What you just said about Kojima sounds like he only has bad intentions all around. But what motive would a game designer have to deliberately promote a false narrative that he knows is false yet lies about it? I know that politicians do that to get elected, but game designers? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:24, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::Yeah, and then Ground Zeroes just has them going back to being Soviet bloc anyways based on a comment made by Miller in the briefing files for that game, making their heel-face-turn pointless (as far as Zadornov, he may have been a villain, but the game largely treated Coldman, the CIA station chief, as even worse, even having Zadornov declare "I should have killed you when I had the chance" as well as genuinely horrified at this after Coldman started Peace Walker's false data transmission, despite that being exactly what Zadornov wanted him to do in the first place, that, and depicting America in the worst light imaginable, even by Metal Gear standards, and that series isn't exactly pro-America by any stretch [only games that come close to being pro-American by any means are Snake Eater and Portable Ops].). And as far as Kojima, yeah, he pretty much did have bad intentions all around. I heard part of the reason he created MGS2 was to act as his commentary about the Japanese Textbook controversy, with Snake's comment about showing the past in all its sordid forms in the ending implying he supported showing Japanese war crimes (put that way, I actually don't blame the Japanese at all for whitewashing their history, because if Kojima's of any indication, the ones who do want to expose the dark elements of history in Japan also tend to hate America alongside Japan as well and, well, any government or national sovereignty, not have any good aims for exposing bad elements of history.), and he admitted that MGS2's themes were about postmodernism (even though such was pretty much discredited). As far as what motive, probably the same motive that had Sartre claim that the USSR was full of freedom of expression or that Che Guevara is the most complete being of the century despite his obviously knowing full well such weren't the case, or heck, what motivated Walter Cronkite or Walter Duranty to lie about the Tet Offensive and the Soviet persecutions in the thirties, respectively, to push his left wing agenda on everyone regardless and hope he gets new followers. And I don't know about entertainment industry liberals having good intentions. Based on what George Lucas said in that AMC interview with James Cameron that I linked to, he apparently was aware at the time that the Vietcong were in fact a terror group, yet STILL supported them and made them out to be heroes in his films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::BTW, since you indicated you are a gamer, think you can help out with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games]] and/or [[Essay:Worst Liberal Video Games]] and add in some entries and/or expand/move around already existing entries? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::::::I've already made several edits to the Video Games essay pages. By the way, there is a real life equivalent to the "Patriots'" "GW" system, it's called the "trust and safety councils" that govern websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. I wanted to point out how Kojima's "Patriots" were an example of liberal projection. I think you can at least take solace in the fact that Kojima has been fired from Konami. If all you said is true, then Lucas and Kojima are some very evil people, and lots of fawning fanboys are putting their blinders on. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:28, 23 December 2018 (EST)

Also I have decided to remove some movies that were on the section, for instance as I said before Labyrinth is only debatable if its pro-family, it in no way is anti-family, as for Grease its should only be on the debatable for conservative list because it contains some conservative ideas, but not a lot, and in no way is it liberal. I also removed Zulu and Blood Freak, because they too do not belong on this list. Also, I moved "Chicken Run" back to the worst liberal section, because even though, it has a feminist villain, it also has a feminist heroic leader, so in a way, it neutralizes it. Also, I moved Jurassic World to debatable.
--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

==Hunchback of Notre Dame==
Except for the thing about the Gargoyle and Djali (not to mention Frollo hitting on Esme a little too much for a G-rated film), I actually think your claims are false. The Archdeacon is good and saved Quasi from Frollo and saved Esme by letting her claim sanctuary and tried to save both Esme and Quasi later, only to be stopped by Frollo and his men. Frollo is basically a self-righteous Pharisee. As for Esme, despite being looked down by Frollo's government, she is very noble in that, unlike liberals, she doesn't feel she is owed anything other than decency (she says "I ask for nothing, I can get by, but I know that there are others less lucky than I."). As for Captain Pheobus, he risks execution by his leader Frollo for disobeying a tyrannical order to burn the innocent alive. Also, Quasi doesn't even kill Frollo (he could have dropped him when he was hanging onto his cloak and Quasi was already in danger of falling and had learned that Frollo was responsible for his mother's death, yet he hung on and Frollo ended up doing himself in. Hardly a liberal movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:21, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:Not really. Yes, the Archdeacon was depicted in a good light, so in that sense, it promotes Christianity a bit more than, say, Beauty and the Beast (which depicts pretty much all the Christians in a very bad light in the village, while Belle, who is implied a few times to be an atheist or at the very least an agnostic, being depicted as a moral figure.). However, it isn't by much, as even ignoring Frollo (and I wouldn't even say he's THAT bad, anyway: Maleficent from the original Sleeping Beauty was a whole lot worse), Christianity as a whole is depicted in a very bad light (don't forget the whole Parisian mob scene with the Feast of Fools, or how the parishman, NOT Frollo, but another parishioner of Notre Dame, was pretty cold to Quasimodo. And I might as well add that the whole scene with the Parisian people was if anything even WORSE in the Disney film than in the book, where the latter was simply them dealing corporate punishment, while in the former, they just did it out of sadism.). And let's not forget that it was also controversially received and the Catholic Church actually had some irritation at the film for how it was depicted. Besides, it definitely can't qualify as a conservative film when they have one of the gargoyles explicitly lusting after Djali (both of whom are male) and being treated positively for it. The Castlevania animated series on Netflix right now does a FAR better job promoting Christianity than Hunchback did. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:01, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

== Possible movie to add ==

Based on [http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/09/15/mother-review-tedious-attack-christians-defense-mother-earth/ this Breitbart review], we should consider adding ''Mother!'' to this essay. As someone not very familiar with this movie, I won't do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

While I agree that the live action one was a gay propaganda film, Gaston is by no means conservative or admirable. He may be good but he's flat out arrogant. Because he does not get his way, he was going to try and threaten to throw Belle's father in the loony bin as blackmail to force Belle to marry him. The Beast, near the end, was willing to let her go because he loved her, even though her leaving could mean the last petal would fall before the spell would be broken. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:29, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm going to be blunt here, several on here are only on here for perceived anti-military, anti-capitalist, pro-feminist, anti-hunter, supporting evolution, etc, themes. If we applied the inconsistent logic here, we'd have to list a lot of otherwise conservative films as being liberal just because of that. I honestly think we're doing what we accuse the Leftists of: going so far that some things are viewed as "microagressions". [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm not saying some shouldn't be on here but others have no business being listed here. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

:Look, Mongoose, a lot of the films you're mentioning have those liberal themes present in a very blatant manner. It's not "perceived", especially not when the actual creators of the films make it extremely clear that it is meant to be that. And as far as Gaston, another editor mentioned him being conservative and hard-working. I really can't speak regarding what Gaston's politics are (and personally, regardless of politics, I consider anyone who does something like threatening a man they knew to be innocent into the insane asylum to force that man's daughter's hand in marriage to be scum), but I do know that Beauty and the Beast has a definite pro-feminist theme, considering even Linda Woolverton made it explicitly clear it was meant to push the feminist agenda (as if the fact that the overall story strongly demonized the concept of marriage via Belle hating the concept, not just marrying Gaston, but even the possibility of being a wife, or how the only three girls who have any interest in marriage are depicted as dumb blondes wasn't blatant enough). And it also doesn't help that it actually promoted premarital relations and even infidelity in a positive light in the form of Lumiere. Oh, and another thing, Belle was actually acting just as arrogant if not even moreso in the original film. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Belle, who doesn't even imply that she believes in God at all, is considered by the story to be a grand moral figure, while the other villagers, who based on the lyrics are devoted Christians, are depicted as idiotic monsters. And Star Wars, George Lucas made it very clear that it was meant to promote the Vietcong, not to mention the Prequel Trilogy outright demonized the concept of even having a military, and the Jedi even promoted moral relativism twice. Besides, that's why we have a "debatable whether liberal" section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:09, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I am wondering, should we also have a conservative movie section? [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:We technically already have that section, it's called "Debatable whether Liberal." [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:58, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, if you are going to cite that it promotes feminism because the director or so-and-so on set said so, then could we at least ask for citations or something? I didn't even know that Beauty and the Beast was MEANT to push feminism. Information like that might be helpful to people. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

BTW, I thought of adding the movie "The Big Green" to the list of leans liberal. The reason being is that one of the characters makes some comment about "Reaganomics" being responsible for the bad local economy and also one of the soccer players was an anchor baby and one of the coaches, who was a sheriff, was able to eventually get him and his illegal mother a way to stay. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, next time you try to add in a post, try not to delete a prior post when adding it in, please? Anyways, I'll definitely make sure I supply any citations for that when I have the opportunity. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

I've noticed an interesting trend. Almost all of the ones rated conservative are at least two decades old while loads of the ones on here as liberal are less than two decades old and loads are a decade old or less. It seems that we're running out of new conservative films. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Well, that's what we're gonna get with Hollywood choosing their leftist politics over, you know, actually trying to tell a good story. Still... there's still some films made today that are definitely conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==About Mulan==
I think it was the Xuans or something, not the Huns. It may have just been pronounced that way because the X may be pronounced like an H in Chinese or something. Also, it's debatable that it's liberal because Mulan does all of that to save her father's life. He wouldn't have made it due to his older age. She was at least doing some honor to her father by risking her life to protect him from going off to a war she didn't think he'd live through. Also, she did risk her neck to save her country despite being looked down upon for being a woman. (That's actually counter Leftist in a way because the Leftist whine about being discriminated against and support policies that hurt their country. Mulan, on the other hand, had no guarantee that she would get honored for what she did. In fact, she knew quite well she could be executed for pretending to be a fictional brother of hers. Also, the character Mulan is a Chinese legend. On the other hand, the ancestor worship was a form of paganism, but, on the other hand, probably was historically accurate. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
:Most of that (save for maybe the Xuans) was already mentioned when I moved Mulan to the Debatable whether Liberal section. I also noted that it was actually very pro-Military as a Conservative point. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:55, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Das Boot? Anti-American? ==

Whoever posted Das Boot on this page obviously didn't see the same movie I saw. Das Boot is, literally, the greatest war film ever made, and it is not anti-American, or pro-American, or pro-Nazi. If anything, it is anti-war, but being anti-war is not exclusive to the Liberal camp. I'm opposed to war, and I'm a former soldier, but I'm for American victory, but not for war for the sake of war. Liberals are not anti-war, but anti-American victory.

Das Boot is about a bunch of Germans who have to get into a steel tube that can submerge underwater, and have to survive a voyage in 1942, and by this year of the war it really sucks being aboard a German submarine because the Allies are getting much better at defending their convoys. It starts out with the sailors and officers at a party getting completely drunk, which is important, because these guys know the hell that awaits them. These guys are about to go aboard the next day aboard a machine where, for the next several weeks they have to live in very tight, confined spaces, for most of them not seeing the sun so it bleaches out their skin for lack of Vitamin D. The film vividly captures this in all it's disgusting glory, from the scene where they have to eradicate the crabs that stowed-away (and not the sea-going crabs), to the scene where the officers are picking out the mold that has appeared on their bread so they can eat!

There is one dedicated Nazi aboard, and he's from Mexico, but he only has one scene where he talks about believing in the Nazi cause, and it's promptly followed by the captain ordering the song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" to be played aboard the ship. This is not interpreted as hyperbolic patriotism under the belief they'll end up shopping in Piccadilly when the war is over, but a way to let off some steam and even to admire their enemies. The captain even criticizes the regime a bit, wondering where the air cover they're supposed to get from Hermann Goering. Where are their fleets screening the North Sea?

We get into the tedium of operating the sub, with a couple of incidents where the captain is frustrated that he can't engage enemy fleets to support other sub attacks because they're just too damn far away. They can hear them, but the sub only moves at roughly 10 knots on a good day if they're not submerged, even slower when they are because they're usually on batteries. When they do initially engage, they are chased away by a destroyer, and this is one of the few WWII sub films I know of where the sub doesn't retaliate against the destroyers because fighting destroyers is extremely difficult even if everything is going well for you because destroyers move and turn very fast. When they do manage to sink a ship, they're shocked to learn that the convoy didn't send anyone out to help these poor guys, and in a tragic scene, the sub has to back away from survivors who are trying to swim to them, and they can't take them on because to do so would be detrimental to them; too many guys aboard could affect if they can even submerge, affect their food stores, and other issues, so they have to let them drown.

Then they have orders to go through the Straits of Gibraltar, which is heavily defended, in order to be able to operate in the Mediterranean. Getting those orders is rough on morale, because everyone knows it's practically a suicide mission. When they make the attempt, we get one of the most horrendously riveting scenes in all filmdom; the depth-charging scene, which lasts several freakin' minutes. If you've never seen this before, you're wondering when this is going to end! This is intentional because the film's screenplay was written by a former German sub-commander, and he wanted you to know what it was like for these guys. They bottom out, and are so far deep it's amazing they weren't crushed by the water pressure. Are they going to survive? Are they ever going to get the sub to surface again? They have to put the crew on O2 and get most of them to sleep in order that they do not use up their remaining O2. When they do surface, you just don't care that they're Germans, but just Men who are trying to survive!!

And that's what real war is like. Once, I was stupid enough to ask my grandfather, who survived Guadalcanal and Okinawa, what the worst thing to happen to America was, and I thought he'd say the 60's or something, and he said WWII. When I said, "Why? We won," he looked at me as if I said something stupid, and he replied, "Son, you win a war like you win an earthquake." When you're in it, you've got ONE thing on your mind - survival. Sure, you want to succeed at missions, because, like the captain of the sub in Das Boot, you want that success to contribute to victory in the hope that the war will end! Nobody wants to die, and for those who end up dying on the battlefield we hope that their deaths were not in vain. But, sometimes, in real war, they are, because sometimes it doesn't matter if you succeed at your mission or not, as in the case of Das Boot at the end. We can admire an enemy's valour and still be patriots.

==xXx: Return of Xander Cage==
My father watched this film and he believes that it depicts the american military as bad.
I seriously believe that the movie is indeed some liberal crap. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Star Wars: The Last Jedi ==

I would recommend including Star Wars: The Last Jedi to the list. Whilst it was well received by film critics, It only got a [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/ 46% audience satisfaction]. A suspected major reason for this is fans being disillusioned by the massive inclusion of [http://redpilltimes.com/feminist-sjw-garbage-the-last-jedi-worst-film-of-2017/ SJW propaganda] in the franchise. This caused fans to [https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/968916/Star-Wars-Solo-FLOP-fan-BOYCOTT-Will-Disney-FIRE-Kathleen-Kennedy-Last-Jedi-box-office boycott] Solo, and as a result Solo was a box office flop. --[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 09:47, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
:Well, Star Wars as a whole definitely is debatable regarding its politics (the Prequel Trilogy and Return of the Jedi definitely came closer to being left-wing in its outlook at least), but yeah, it pushed left-wing elements to a far greater extent, so we probably should note that bit. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:50, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
::I included a small bit about The Last Jedi in the essay. I think it is a shame that this has happened. I used to love Star Wars when it was all about plot, but now it is all about pushing the SJW agenda. This really is a low point in the Star Wars franchise and there is talk about boycotting episode 9 which should be interesting.--[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 21:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

== ''Call Me by Your Name'' ==

If ''Call Me by Your Name'' depicts "pedophilia", then so does ''[[Dirty Dancing]]'' (1987), in which the ages of the two lovers is exactly the same. [[User:FredJ|FredJ]] ([[User talk:FredJ|talk]]) 17:58, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

== The Terminator movies ==

The first movie was fairly neutral, but Terminator 2 had some anti-war Propaganda. Genisys and Dark Fate really push Feminism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

== Made a suggestion to add two movies as possibly liberal ==

There was definitely a more feminist agenda in Incredibles 2, and likely, though, unlike Incredibles 2, I haven't seen it and can only rely on heresay, but have heard it from MANY sources, that Toy Story 4 did as well. Plus Toy Story 4, like Finding Dory, had another covert lesbian couple in the background, though unlike Finding Dory, Disney didn't even TRY to deny it this time. Also, some may wonder if Forky, a spork, and who has a rainbow painted on his feet, is supposed to be a covert reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, you mean Disney's actually CONFIRMED, directly, that the two ladies were a lesbian couple? Could you give a source? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:17, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

I cannot say they confirmed it, rather they didn't try and deny it. For instance, I now believe there was a lesbian couple in Finding Dory. However, when asked about it, Disney basically neither confirmed or denied, but told the Guardian "They can be whatever you want them to be": https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/09/finding-dory-lesbian-couple-disney-gay-characters

However, when some LGBT groups praised the lesbian couple snuck into Toy Story 4, in much the way that they did in Finding Dory where you almost had to be looking for it to find it, Disney did NOT bother to try and deny the claims in any way this time: https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/123834/toy-story-4-has-a-small-but-important-moment-of-lgbtq-representation/

The Gay Times article that mentioned the Lesbian Couple in Finding Dory says that Disney and Ellen Degeneres denied it as a certain thing. However, as far as I can find, I can find nothing from Disney denying the allegations this time around.

Furthermore, though there is nothing other than circumstantial evidence on this, as the character is clearly identified as a "he" here, one must wonder if the character Forky, who is actually a spork (which I heard is a transgender symbol) and who also has a rainbow (a known LGBT symbol on his foot) is also a subtle reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (EDT)

First, Toy Story 4 is racist, now it promotes TRANSGENDERISM?! I give up. [[User:BernieandTrumpFan|BernieandTrumpFan]] ([[User talk:BernieandTrumpFan|talk]])

I don't think it's racist. However, some sources are saying it's feminist. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]])

== South Park Movie ==

I'm removing this one from the list. Any objections?

Just out of curiosity, how come it's being removed? --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 13:03, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

The South Park creators are libertarians. They recently came out as "Republicans." In attempting to create and release this movie, they faced liberal censorship. The MPAA was worried people might be ''offended''. I think the better question to ask would be, "Why was it put here in the first place?" ---BernieandTrumpFan

Oh, okay. I almost forgot about them having been libertarian. --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

==Angry Birds 2 is liberal==

New American, a conservative source, has stated that they push "climate change" and are even partnering with the UN to push the climate agenda.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/33297-angry-birds-movie-2-global-warming-propaganda-for-tots
[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:25, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

== Suggestions ==

The Exorcist:
Uncut version features a blasphemous and pedophilia scene featuring child actor Linda Blair pleasuring herself with a crucifix.

Hellraiser franchise
Demonic themes, torture, graphic murder.

Ichi the Killer
Several themes of nihilism, rape, torture, BDSM, crime.

Battle Royale
Anti-government, banned from release in the U.S. after columbine.

Audition
Pro feminism, nihilism, torture.

Oldboy
Revenge motif, character is a drunken adulterer, incest.

Spawn
Main character goes to hell and is revived by Satan to be a footsoldier and is treated as the good guy.

House of 1000 Corpses franchise
Paints southerners as evil satanists. Several instances of torture, blasphemy, rape, and other unspeakable actions.

Lost Highway
Nihilistic film liked by columbine shooters.

Harry Potter franchise
Pro witchcraft, feminism, homosexuality.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Paints slaughterhouse workers as evil cannibals.

Fight Club
Overtly nihilist pro anarchy terrorist film.

*Regarding Exorcist, was that BEFORE or DURING her demonic possession? Because if it's the latter, I don't think that was a promotion of blasphemy (and if anything showcased something was deeply wrong about her). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:08, 14 November 2019 (EST)

== Add a disclaimer? ==

I think there should be a disclaimer or warning at the top of all "Worst Liberal..." articles saying something to the effect of "We do not care if a movie/TV show/video game is considered a 'classic' or that it's a famous movie/TV show/video game that many people have nostalgia for. If it has liberal elements and/or the creators of a certain movie/TV show/video game had some liberal agenda in mind when they crafted the story's narrative, we will call it out. Just because people love movies doesn't mean that Hollywood isn't trying to push a liberal agenda with them." As an example, many people love the Star Wars movies, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of "the Force" is based on Pantheism, which is un-biblical. It also does not change the fact that George Lucas based the Ewoks on the Vietcong based on his slanted misunderstanding of the Vietnam War. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:Sounds okay to me - after all, there is a similar header in the Worst Liberal TV Shows essay article. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:22, 19 May 2020 (EDT)
::Speaking of Worst Liberal TV Shows' header, was there any similar event in movies to the Rural Purge in there? We might need to note that.
::And agreed, we definitely need to post that up top, especially when liberal outlets are rather infamous for disguising their liberal agenda with more conservative traits. I'm hesitant to say George Lucas "misunderstood" the Vietnam War, though only because he made it pretty clear he knew the Vietcong were a terrorist group when he modeled the "heroes" of Star Wars after them when asked by James Cameron, back at the time he was filming it. Meaning he KNEW he was modeling the Rebels on genuine bad guys and not good people, yet did so anyway. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:36, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

== 2012 ==
The movie "2012" should be added to this list. It promotes a liberal inclusive agenda, and makes Conservative politicians the antagonists. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 21:25, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

User talk:MAGAViking

2020-10-25T01:24:50Z

MAGAViking: Created page with "== Help == I'm trying to save an edit to the Essay:Worst Liberal Movies page, and when I hit save the page just refreshes. I'm filling out the CAPTCHA correctly, so I don'..."

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2020-10-25T01:17:33Z

MAGAViking:

I am removing Scarface because it is a remake of a 1932 classic (which had the same plot, and definitely wasn't "liberal"), it in no way "glorifies" gangsterism and drug abuse since at the end of the film it shows the consequences of Tony Montanna's life of crime and drugs (He loses his wife, his best friend and his sister as a result of his reckless ways) and finally, the film is a classic. Even if it is liberal its still one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time and definitely doesn't belong on a list of movies that are the "worst". And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.
:''And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.'' Really? Well I am reverting and blocking you - whether you like it or not. Come back with a better, more collaborative, attitude next time. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:36, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

The name of this article should be changed to "Most overtly liberal movies" since several of the mentioned films are very well made and thus good movies.
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Back to the Future and Mrs. Doubtfire are also on this, I am going to remove them both because they are very successful films and have become classics, and definitely do not belong on a list of movies considered the worst.--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:36, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

== questionable entries ==

can a new category for movies that are questionably liberal be added. "The Social Network" is not overtly liberal. In the protagonist in a negative light, showing how Facebook ruins his life (his best friend sues him, he seems depressed, etc). It depicts everyone involved as jerks. It is questionably liberal because some liberals like the mean spirited Zuckerberg. Also, V for Vendetta is a libertarian movie. It is anti big government (and I would say anti communism). However it is anti religion, so again, questionably liberal
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

If you're going to include a classic film like "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" then you had best rename the article to "liberal movies", as most of these movies are actually brilliant films and are by no means "the worst". But then again the "Best Conservative Movies" list has some dreadful films on it like "Space Jam" and "The Room". This site seems to have a very liberal definition of the term "liberal", and an even more liberal definition of the words "worst" and "best".
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 09:42, 13 April 2012 (EST)

:Disagreements about a few of the entries in each list is to be expected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::If entries do not reflect the general opinion of Conervapedia users then why aren't they removed? No justification for the inclusion of "The Meaning of Life" has been given. It's inclusion on the list is very dubious. This list previously included classic films such as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Scarface", which I removed without being reinstated afterwards. Why not remove "The Meaning Of Life"?
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 21:13, 14 April 2012 (EST)
:::Regarding ''V for Vendetta'', actually, most of the film was left-wing. The original comic may have been libertarian (showing the negative consequences of both totalitarianism and anarchy), but the actual film promoted full out anarchy without covering the negatives. Also, technically, it was supposed to be anti-Nazi, as the Norsefire party was meant to emulate Nazi Germany (which even the left hates). And I have read that there was more pro-communist messages in the film anyways, though I might have to dig it out. Actually, I think the Wachowski Brothers, or at least Larry/Lana Wachowski, were self-confessed Marxists. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 23:31, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:I removed the ''Frozen'' entry, namely because the reason for it being included was simply because of what an obscure pastor and a blog post stated. I'm against the gay agenda, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if Disney churned it out now, but really, John Nolte of Breitbart, who is not only conservative, but in his own words, is very good at spotting Hollywood leftist agendas from a hundred yards away, had viewed ''Frozen'' and could not pick up on any agendas in the film, certainly not the homosexual agenda. At best, the only "gay" it pushed was making people smile, what "gay" originally meant before the homosexuals hijacked the term. Here's the article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/13/Disneys-frozen-is-not-homosexual-propaganda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:39, 11 April 2014 (EDT)

==The Life of Brian==
I will not stand for this film's inclusion on this list, it should be deleted immediately. Perhaps you should actually watch the film for yourself before making silly assumptions about it. BRIAN IS NOT JESUS! He is not portrayed as a Christ-like figure, the Pythons have made it very clear in interviews and documentaries that the film was not made to mock Jesus, or his followers; it simply makes fun of people who don't think for themselves and rely on what other people say, much like the critics of the film, who blasted the film as "blasphemous" on the basis of what other people who hadn't seen the film said. The fact that we are debating this in 2012 is absolutely ludicrous. I could name many other films that were a lot more blasphemous that aren't on this list. The fact that it is on a list of "worst movies" is even more insulting; Even if you were offended by the movie, you can't deny the great wit and satire that is found in this film. The reference to it being "anti-semetic" is just plain untrue.--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:30, 29 August 2012 (EST)

== Bestiality in Avatar? ==

If I recall correctly, in ''The Lord of the Rings'', the human protagonist Aragorn has a "creepy" romance with an Elvish woman. While I am in favour of Avatar's inclusion on this list, I find that particular criticism a bit bizarre. --[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:18, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:I know this is an old topic, but I digress... At least with Lord of the Rings, the Elves were extremely similar enough to humans to pass as such (only difference being that elves had pointy ears). Avatar's situation, however, has him striking a romance with an alien that clearly doesn't even look remotely human (probably the closest thing to them being human being that they were bipeds), so you can probably see why that would be considered bestiality. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 19:00, 21 January 2014 (EST)

== Jackass??? ==
Not to mention the fact a lot of activists use Steve0 and Johnny Knoxville as a political and 'ethical' examples (SteveO's vegan and climate change activism) as well as the almost torturous stunts, that (in my opinion) is pretty dang immoral.--[[User:Man O Wisdom|Man O Wisdom]] ([[User talk:Man O Wisdom|talk]]) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (EST)[[User:Man O Wisdom]] 13:21, 26 January 2020 (CT)

Why is ''Jackass: The Movie'' a liberal movie? Its completely unpolitical.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 15:10, 1 January 2014 (EST)

:You can remove it if you like. But everything has a political slant or effect, even if a slight one. If a movie leads people away from the [[Bible]] or conservative values, for example, then it does have a political effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 1 January 2014 (EST)
::But Jackass has no political effect and it does not lead people away from the Bible.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:04, 2 January 2014 (EST)

== Elysium is in a league of its own and deserves its own page. ==

So, I'd like to mention how stupidly liberal Elysium is. In fact, it's so horribly liberal it's conservative. I just have to rant because I've had one of the most horrible times of my life watching that movie.

Spoilers obviously

*See the people living on Earth only seem to be criminals or employed by the wealthy. The wealthy live happily because they are not overpopulating in their domain. In fact, it seems the wealthy can make themselves younger again, and suffer no death where they live, because they've learned to properly balance their consumption, population levels, laws, all the while not aging, etc.

*Scientifically speaking, when the main character enters a "radiation vent" or whatever, he gets radiated by an error in the machine he's stuck in. Thing is, radiation doesn't just "come and go" the way the movie plays it. It's either there in which he was radiated the moment he entered that section, or he was faking it to begin with. And why exactly are they radiating the cargo? It's in a wooden crate meaning the radiation would seep in.

*Criminals illegally break into the border and it seems there are virtually no defense systems whatsoever to prevent this from happening. This seems stupid, because it would obviously need defenses from meteors and comets. Their only "defense" is an evil homeless guy with a bazooka that can shoot space ships from Earth.

*The evil plan didn't make sense. They put "the key" to Elysium in a guy's head to modify Elysium to serve another rich person, but the only way it can work is if they kill the person who has the key. How exactly did he get the key in his head from Earth, and how did the poor people steal it?

*The rich seem to only not want to share "free healthcare" because of one reason: they're mean. The rich are portrayed as soulless monsters who have nothing better to do than be mean. It doesn't seem to explain a logical reason for why they're not sharing this health system which perfectly heals all wounds at seemingly no cost.

*The only person who seems to have a job without relying on wealthy people is some old lady who owns pigs in a cart. The rest are criminals because they themselves are incapable of supporting one another through real work and independent job creation.

*The "health pods" cured a guy who died from a head on collision from a grenade and turned elderly young. But they cant fix the main character? The brain of one guy literally exploded and he's still curable.

*At the end of the movie, the robots are programmed to identify everyone as a citizen of Elysium. The wealthy have pale looks on their faces. For some odd reason, the robots export the healthcare pods away from Elysium, as well as bringing in more people to Elysium. What makes the people there pale isn't the fact that they "can't be mean anymore" as some liberals might assume, but because they can no longer guarantee their own survival on the resources they've earned. And once it's gone, it'll be gone for good. They'll soon reach a mountainous population, unable to feed themselves due to a loss of resources at the colossal level of immigration and unaging pods and a constantly high birthrate.

*What bothers me the most about Elysium isn't the fact that this movie is the political opinion of a British guy about the US, or even how stupidly bias the movie was. What bothered me the most was the critical acclaim the movie got. I feel that if I made a movie about how demonic creatures are entering a holy land of peace: The evil liberdemons who want nothing more than to take all of our wealth, happiness, and means of defending ourselves for their personal interest and kill whomever they feel like, while the main character sacrifices himself to produce a powerful border-barrier that eliminates the ability for soulless liber-demons to cross... I'd be called a bigot. The reviews for Elysium seem to be nothing but positive, with people saying, "it makes you think," "behind all the action is a moral," and all this other crap. Why is this movie held in such high esteem? It does its best to portray anyone conservative as evil while liberals are portrayed as victims and innocents.

Of all things the disgusting experience I had watching that movie has made me more conservative than ever in my life.
[[User:Patriotic|Patriotic]]
:Gonna have to agree with you in this one. Not only it attacks capitalism but it promotes Open Borders. and the Irony is that Neil Blomkamp was surprised with the correlation. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Renaming section ==

Would it be a good idea to rename the '''Anti-Religious''' section to '''Anti-Christian'''?
I say this because the comment for ''Cloud Atlas'' in that section begins, "Supports the idea of reincarnation and features anti-Christian undertones."
Some non-Christian religions support the idea of reincarnation, and I would think most non-religious liberals don't, except the new-age hippy types. It seems that films which are anti-Christian but not secular should be included in the section, but the section heading doesn't reflect that. [[User:ConsMovies|ConsMovies]] 11:43, 9 January 2015 (EST)

== PRothan's removals ==

I know little about these movies, as I watch very few, but it seems that [[User:PRothan|PRothan]] is removing an awful lot of entries, especially for a new member. Are we sure that there removals are appropriate? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:07, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
:PRothan removed Edward Scissorhands from this web page. Edward Scissorhands was pretty much endorsed by Christiananswers.net with a 4 out of 5 stars rating.[http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2005/edwardscissorhands1990.html]. Christiananswers.net is a Bible believing Christian website. My guess is that PRothan may be doing a lot of helpful pruning from this web page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
::Okay, good! I hate to be cynical, but when someone creates and account and begins removing large amounts of text, I get suspicious. Glad to hear it then, and thanks for the second opinion! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:44, 12 May 2016 (EDT)

== The Princess and the Frog ==

I don't really know why The Princess and the Frog is on here. If anything, it promotes conservative values. The main character has been taught the value of hard work by her father and is working hard to save enough money to start her own business, and the prince, who starts the movie as an amoral hedonist who just wants everything given to him, gradually learns the value of sacrifice and caring for other people. It's true that one of the characters who helps them is a "blind voodoo lady", and not Christian, but she's no less Christian than all the fairy godmothers in all the old Disney movies. If no one objects, I'm going to remove this entry. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 18:45, 31 May 2016 (EDT)

I agree with Whizkid. (BTW, I also thought Brave was pretty good. I don't see how it's anti-conservative. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

:Ah, let's see, there's the fact that it promoted feminism to such an extent that even when Merida was actually given the choice regarding her grooms hand in marriage, she still pitched a fit, and mostly didn't even want to get married because it would have interfered with her archery skills (not to mention didn't even end with marriage anyways), the women were depicted as the "wise" ones while the father is depicted as a bumbling idiot. Oh, and Merida even attempted to outright ''drug'' her mom to have her see things her way (sure, she didn't plan on turning her into a bear, but she definitely didn't plan anything good for her mom beforehand anyway). There's definitely a whole lot of liberal stuff in there, far more than truly conservative stuff. Yes, it may have its following. So does Star Trek, and that's pretty blatantly a liberal franchise regardless of whether conservatives are fans of it or not. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't know about that. Merida was only a teenager. Besides, it's not like you are required to support the orders of your parents in marrying someone according to the Bible to the point where you are ordered whom to marry. What they said was that she would marry whomever she loved. Forcing someone to marry someone that they probably wouldn't even love would be a bad idea. While it may have been done in biblical and even medieval times, it no means justifies it as good or resisting arranged marriages as bad.

As for drug her mom, I don't even think Merida knew that magic dessert did other than help change things. Besides, Merida WAS willing to actually go along with one of the arranged marriages in order to fix things but her own mother decided to give her a break and let her pick whom she wanted to marry. At first, the clan leaders were angry but then their sons all said that they actually agreed with the queen that arranged marriages were bad and that this "You should get to decide whom you marry for yourself." idea was a good one. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, your argument of the men being depicted as idiots, while generally true, falls apart with the triplet brothers. They actually helped Merida and her mother out of a couple of jams and were quite crucial in helping at times. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Do you think maybe it should be written to say "that in general the men are depicted as idiots" instead? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:03, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Apparently, you hadn't noticed that there were three people competing for her hand in marriage, and that her mom actually DID allow her to choose between them. That was a whole lot more than Jasmine and Aurora got, anyway. And as far as the cake, when it alters her mom's state of mind, that essentially means she planned on drugging her. Either way, this acts as a better explanation than I can muster: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/06/22/brave-movie-review/#comment-565161710 Though, fine, generally depicted as stupid. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Just remembered that this topic was about The Princess and the Frog. Well, for my two cents, I really don't have much of a comment one way or another (I don't think Louisiana Voodoo would have made the film particularly conservative, especially when it was practiced by both good and bad people), but on the other hand, though I'll admit I haven't seen the film at all, I'm not sure how it had anti-war stuff in it (if anything, Tiana looked up to her dad, an implied World War I veteran). As far as Tiana's feminism, to be fair to her, since her dad was dead, I'm not sure her trying to run a business was indicative of feminism since, being the oldest of the family, she kind of needs to work in order to provide for her family. Besides, I'd argue that Belle from Beauty and the Beast (the animated version, not the live action remake) came across as a LOT more feminist than Tiana did DESPITE not holding a job at all. Lastly, you have to admit, it's the first feature-length Disney film to not only show a traditional wedding, but treat it in a positive manner as well (before this one, the closest we got to marriage being treated in a positive light or even shown at all is in ''Aladdin and the King of Thieves'' and possibly ''Mulan II''), so that's actually a pretty good conservative message ESPECIALLY considering the anti-traditional marriage messaging that was pushed by various Disney films since ''Beauty and the Beast'' in 1991). Of course, whether it does get moved is ultimately up to Andy Schlafly (and he might need to state exactly WHERE some of the liberal stuff is at, particularly the anti-war bit.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:23, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Just adding some thoughts. ==

I believe that the movie That's Way I Am should be added to this list. It seems OK at first, but it completely goes backwards off tracks from the main plot to shoehorn in the [[Homosexual Agenda]], and shows the only Christian, right-wing characters as backwards bigots who have raised bullies. Ultimately it promotes [[Liberal Censorship|censorship]] and [[Homosexuality|immorality]]. Please respond with your thoughts.[[User:ILOVEJESUS2|ILOVEJESUS2]] ([[User talk:ILOVEJESUS2|talk]]) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (EDT)
:I have never heard of the movie, but if it is clearly a liberal movie, feel free to add it. I recommend adding sources, though. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:51, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

== "Spare Parts" should not be here. ==

In my opinion, the film "Spare Parts" should not be here. It shows a conservative moral of a hard-working underdog, underfunded team facing problems beating well-funded college professional teams.
:Be bold.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 13:16, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

== Should we really have a debatable if liberal section? ==

Should we really have a list of those films that are debatable if liberal, which is the same list as those on the debatable of conservative? There are some really great and popular films, on that list such as Back to The Future, Jaws, Mrs. Doubtfire, Scarface, Star Wars, which are all beloved classics, (some of them were recently removed from the other list those). But don’t think we should have a duplicate list, on two different pages. It is like saying when it’s on the greatest conservative films list these films are the best except for a couple flaws, but to also have it here it like saying, these films are the worst except for a couple of good aspects. Every film has it good aspect and bad aspects, no film is perfect. Also some of these films on this list are not here because there debatable if conservative or liberal. Such as Grease it is listed here because it’s debatable or not if it has enough conservative aspects to be conservative such as it says “Some conservative messages and no feminism or other political correctness; mocks public school and even television during the 1950s. Followed in 1982 by a much panned sequel (Grease 2).” That should not appear on a list that debatable if liberal. (Unless you are talking about its panned sequel, but that is whole different movie, and should appear separately). I suggest we remove that part of the list, or at least make some changes. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (EST)

:It doesn't matter whether the movies are popular or not, that doesn't put them above scrutiny. While certain movies may be seen as beloved classics, like Star Wars, that doesn't mean that the creators didn't deliberately put liberal elements in them (and George Lucas absolutely did make the Ewoks analogous to the Vietcong, he's said so more than once). As Ben Shapiro says in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMYCnI5kz0| this video] "By all means, enjoy television. I do! But remember, the people making Television don't merely want to entertain you, they want to influence you. They want you to think like they think." The same is true for movie makers. You need only look at things the movie makers have said about their creations. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:48, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::Heck, not just the Ewoks. If the 1973 development notes and ''How Star Wars Conquered the Universe'' is to be believed, he even based the Rebel Alliance itself on the Vietcong and North Vietnamese army. And don't get me started on Beauty and the Beast, where it's made very clear from Jeffrey Katzenberg and especially Linda Woolverton and Don Hahn that the film was trying to push the feminist agenda. And yes, if any movie has writers deliberately trying to implement liberal values, we DO have to note it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:19, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::A lot of these things are not self-evident to a lot of people and they go over their heads. For example, George Lucas's intentions in Return of the Jedi were definitely out of touch with the time. It was released in 1983, when everyone's mind was on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how Americans were behind the scenes helping the rebels (who unfortunately became the Taliban). Realistically, the Battle of Endor is more analogous to that than what George Lucas intended since what he intended was based on a biased, inaccurate liberal interpretation of the Vietnam War. The thing is though that many, if not most people apply "Death of The Author" when interpreting these movies which often results in them not seeing the liberal elements in them (except they don't do the same for the rare movies made by conservative creators with a conservative motive behind them). [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 10:40, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::Well, to be fair, Osama bin Laden's group was independent of our funding if the 9/11 Commission Report is to be believed. Besides, apparently Lucas' boasting about the Ewoks' inspiration at the very least was common-knowledge enough even back then that Richard Nixon explicitly referenced that in his book No More Vietnams in 1985. And as far as "death of the author", I want to believe that, but unfortunately, I'm not sure if such can be applied in this case, especially not after the Prequel Trilogy where Lucas didn't even attempt to hide his leftist sympathies in the movie (and besides, I've already seen how death of the author is a failed concept after Hideo Kojima had [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usYtK3d2ydk two guys gushing over Che Guevara in ''Peace Walker''] despite them not being the types, either in that game or, heck, prior game appearances from them, ever indicating they were the type to worship such garbage (oh, and one of them was idolized as basically being George Washington by one of his sons in one of the prior games, and said son [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNhyvsEqVY certainly idolized the latter].). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:20, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::The thing is, a lot of people who make the movies have some of the right ideas, but apply them to the wrong people. I already mentioned how the Empire from Star Wars was more realistically analogous to the Soviet Union, but also Palpatine from the prequel trilogy was more analogous to how Hitler came to power by slowly chipping away at German Democracy and consolidating power. Also, think about how much more Barack Obama consolidated power with his executive orders (which liberals who protested the Patriot Act ignored). And then there's Metal Gear Solid and the "patriots." There really are people like that, except it's the Deep State and the Media-Entertainment Complex, not the Military-Industrial complex as Kojima asserts. Ironically, the Big Boss antagonist from the original Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 was actually more like the REAL Che Guevara. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:58, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::::Yeah, I'm still not too sure about that. Lucas did imply that the Old Republic was analogous to Robespierre's France, after all (I believe his exact words were to the effect of "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon?", and that was during the 2005 Cannes Film Festival), and that was closer to how Nazi Germany was like (and he also said in an interview with Charlie Rose that he thought Soviet film production had more "artistic freedom", as in, the same film production stuff that if you get on the leader's bad side you get shot, even if you did what he asked, heck, even if he actually LIKES your works as Shteyman learned the hard way, if The Death of Stalin is to be believed, is somehow better than the Hollywood system which, while having risks of losing money if you fail, at least doesn't land you with a bullet in your head). Not to mention, Palpatine's rise to power isn't even close to being similar to Nazi Germany. Maybe if the Republic had been forced to pay reparations during a prior war that they lost, and Palpatine had a ragtag bunch of militant homosexual socialists basically beating up bystanders to vote for him instead of communists, and basically being about as unstable as Kylo Ren, then I'd see more similarities, but as it is, it really doesn't look even slightly similar. Also, the Expanded Universe, the old one anyways, actually mentioned that the Corporate Sector Authority was largely given free reign by the Empire, the latter expanding its territory and even was largely hands off with it being implied that actually benefitted the galactic economy, and don't get me started on the immunity spheres (none of which Nazi Germany would have allowed, let alone the Soviets. In fact, if you were to suggest such concepts to the higher ups, whether Stalin or Lenin or Khrushchev, or anyone like that, they'd probably order for you to be hauled to the gulags at best and at worst shot on sight.). If anything, the Rebels boycotting the CSA comes closer to what the Soviets would have done. And besides, apparently Lucas also insisted that Saw Gerrera be based on Che Guevara, and if the official book Star Wars and History is to be believed, Mao Zedong's concept of a People's War also formed the basis of the Rebel Alliance (and Mao was even WORSE than Stalin and the Soviets regarding carnage, let alone Hitler and the Nazis).
::::::As far as Big Boss, yeah, having looked through the MSX2 games, he really didn't come across as being like Che at all. Unlike Che, who literally had to be muzzled by Khrushchev to stop him from causing nuclear war by nuking America during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Big Boss didn't seem to even try to launch nukes. Build them, sure, but most of the world did that. Heck, Snake wasn't even sent in to stop Metal Gear in MG2 unlike the first game or later games, he was sent in to basically rescue an abducted researcher and his alternate fuel formula. And then MGS1 just retcons the whole "Third Zero" thing anyways, basically killing off any bad elements of Big Boss afterward. And besides, Big Boss had a perfect opportunity to emulate his "idol" in the second ending of Peace Walker with ZEKE and Paz's hijacking of it to basically give her the goahead to launch a nuke on the Eastern Seaboard and frame MSF, just as Che intended to do with the CMC, yet he didn't. If anything, he risked his life to stop her. If any Metal Gear character came closer to acting like Che Guevara, it was Colonel Volgin, who actually DID attempt to cause World War III and even went as far as to actually launch a nuke to do so (not to mention was pretty much a sadistic bullying coward like Che, though that being said, even HE had more honor and courage than the real Che, who died begging like a dog), or ironically enough, Hot Coldman, who also attempted to start a nuclear war. And don't get me started on how Miller was even LESS likely to be a Che fanboy than Big Boss was, and yet he somehow came across as being even more of one than him at the same time. Besides, regarding the Patriots, Kojima basically made it clear they represented America and that we were the bad guys, in his Grand Game Plan, and then we get into his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay in Ground Zeroes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 12:23, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oiq9zFHHdw&t=830s This] is a typical example of people who are in serious denial about how there are in fact liberal elements in classic entertainment. Also, people who know REAL history and don't understand liberal Hollywood's extremely distorted view of history could easily miss what the filmmakers are attempting to make their movies analogous to, since it's actually not like what they really were. For example, Kojima, like so many liberals who wear those stupid Che t-shirts, has a very wrong idea of who Che Guevara really was. What Big Boss and Miller are hero-worshiping is that false strawman, not the real Che. The Hollywood liberals who advocate Socialism make Socialism look like what they think it is, but people who actually know what it really is don't see the parallel. For example, I grew up knowing what the Soviet Union and China were actually like, so I didn't get the fact that Star Trek's Federation depicts what Gene Roddenberry thought they were. The thing that I found the most bothersome was how the future was secularized under the idea of "we've outgrown such primitive superstitions." It wasn't until finding resources like Conservapedia that I learned just how off-the-rails these people are. Most laymen don't understand the overall leftist philosophy and how it has affected so many people throughout history. I think Dinesh D'souza needs to make a documentary explaining the influence of leftist ideology on Hollywood. He should call it "Commiewood" or something. I think this essay needs to have some of this kind of information in the intro explaining why this essay exists.[[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:21, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::Yeah, that video you linked reminds me, we REALLY need to update the links on that site so that at the very least, there's a backup copy to thwart claims that we use nonexistent links. Too bad the search area of Archive.org is screwy right now, getting to a 404 error if I try to type any links in, so we actually can't do it right now (and believe me, I actually tried doing that. I don't get it, it's been screwy with intermittent periods of working since I think October).
::::::::And honestly, regarding Kojima, considering that's the same guy who not only mentioned the Katyn Forest Massacre and accurately pinned the blame on the Soviets, but also mentioned that America even before the Cuban Missile Crisis' conclusion was already planning to get rid of the Turkey silos anyway due to being rendered obsolete by nuclear subs in Metal Gear Solid 3 (which is information that's not likely to be taught at school, especially not the leftist-dominated schools), I'm doubtful he's got a "wrong idea" of what Che's like, since that would imply he was merely ignorant of the real Che. If anything, its more likely that he knows what Che's truly like, yet is DELIBERATELY pushing a false image of Che on the masses, which is even worse (almost Walter Duranty-levels worse). If he truly had been ignorant, he'd probably push the USSR as being the best thing since sliced bread like most leftists, or at least better than America (especially in MGS3). And to be fair, Roddenberry did base the Federation more on the United Nations than on the USSR and/or China, not that it really mattered since the UN was still garbage and a Trojan Horse Marxist organization from the get go, even with its more positive spin among the masses especially back then. And maybe most current Hollywood leftists are a bit ignorant about what actual socialism is like, but based on some stuff the Rebels did in various EU stuff like, I don't know, slaughtering the Imperial Palace staff in Children of the Jedi and doing a show trial for a Grand Admiral after Endor, not to mention boycotting the Corporate Sector Authority, I'd argue that Lucas at least does have some idea of what communism/socialism is actually like [he certainly was knowledgeable enough about Karl Marx to quote him if Skywalking is of any indication]. Heck, he even seemed to be fully aware of the Vietcong being a terrorist group if [https://youtu.be/Nxl3IoHKQ8c this clip] from James Cameron's History of Sci-Fi on AMC is of any indication.
::::::::I also agree that D'Souza really needs to do a "Commiewood"-type film exposing the leftist dreck in that industry right now, maybe also something similar with the educational system. Of course, he probably should also do a film that exposes the true nature of the French Revolution, since that's what both the USSR and Nazi Germany tie back to directly, heck, democracy itself (since democracy and socialism are one and the same, joined at the hip since the French Revolution).
::::::::Also agree that it needs some measure of an introduction to explain why this essay is necessary. You can always ask NorthWest for help creating the intro, he was largely responsible for a similar introduction on Essay: Worst Liberal TV Shows where he tied it to the Rural Purge. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::Strange thing about Peace Walker though. The Russian character Vladimir Zadornov is depicted as a bad guy, and yet, despite the fact that the Soviets were in fact backing the Nicaraguan Sandanistas, the Sandanistas in the game turn against Zadornov. Very strange indeed. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:10, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::My understanding of liberals in the entertainment industry was that they always had good intentions but bad ideas. What you just said about Kojima sounds like he only has bad intentions all around. But what motive would a game designer have to deliberately promote a false narrative that he knows is false yet lies about it? I know that politicians do that to get elected, but game designers? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:24, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::Yeah, and then Ground Zeroes just has them going back to being Soviet bloc anyways based on a comment made by Miller in the briefing files for that game, making their heel-face-turn pointless (as far as Zadornov, he may have been a villain, but the game largely treated Coldman, the CIA station chief, as even worse, even having Zadornov declare "I should have killed you when I had the chance" as well as genuinely horrified at this after Coldman started Peace Walker's false data transmission, despite that being exactly what Zadornov wanted him to do in the first place, that, and depicting America in the worst light imaginable, even by Metal Gear standards, and that series isn't exactly pro-America by any stretch [only games that come close to being pro-American by any means are Snake Eater and Portable Ops].). And as far as Kojima, yeah, he pretty much did have bad intentions all around. I heard part of the reason he created MGS2 was to act as his commentary about the Japanese Textbook controversy, with Snake's comment about showing the past in all its sordid forms in the ending implying he supported showing Japanese war crimes (put that way, I actually don't blame the Japanese at all for whitewashing their history, because if Kojima's of any indication, the ones who do want to expose the dark elements of history in Japan also tend to hate America alongside Japan as well and, well, any government or national sovereignty, not have any good aims for exposing bad elements of history.), and he admitted that MGS2's themes were about postmodernism (even though such was pretty much discredited). As far as what motive, probably the same motive that had Sartre claim that the USSR was full of freedom of expression or that Che Guevara is the most complete being of the century despite his obviously knowing full well such weren't the case, or heck, what motivated Walter Cronkite or Walter Duranty to lie about the Tet Offensive and the Soviet persecutions in the thirties, respectively, to push his left wing agenda on everyone regardless and hope he gets new followers. And I don't know about entertainment industry liberals having good intentions. Based on what George Lucas said in that AMC interview with James Cameron that I linked to, he apparently was aware at the time that the Vietcong were in fact a terror group, yet STILL supported them and made them out to be heroes in his films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::BTW, since you indicated you are a gamer, think you can help out with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games]] and/or [[Essay:Worst Liberal Video Games]] and add in some entries and/or expand/move around already existing entries? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::::::I've already made several edits to the Video Games essay pages. By the way, there is a real life equivalent to the "Patriots'" "GW" system, it's called the "trust and safety councils" that govern websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. I wanted to point out how Kojima's "Patriots" were an example of liberal projection. I think you can at least take solace in the fact that Kojima has been fired from Konami. If all you said is true, then Lucas and Kojima are some very evil people, and lots of fawning fanboys are putting their blinders on. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:28, 23 December 2018 (EST)

Also I have decided to remove some movies that were on the section, for instance as I said before Labyrinth is only debatable if its pro-family, it in no way is anti-family, as for Grease its should only be on the debatable for conservative list because it contains some conservative ideas, but not a lot, and in no way is it liberal. I also removed Zulu and Blood Freak, because they too do not belong on this list. Also, I moved "Chicken Run" back to the worst liberal section, because even though, it has a feminist villain, it also has a feminist heroic leader, so in a way, it neutralizes it. Also, I moved Jurassic World to debatable.
--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

==Hunchback of Notre Dame==
Except for the thing about the Gargoyle and Djali (not to mention Frollo hitting on Esme a little too much for a G-rated film), I actually think your claims are false. The Archdeacon is good and saved Quasi from Frollo and saved Esme by letting her claim sanctuary and tried to save both Esme and Quasi later, only to be stopped by Frollo and his men. Frollo is basically a self-righteous Pharisee. As for Esme, despite being looked down by Frollo's government, she is very noble in that, unlike liberals, she doesn't feel she is owed anything other than decency (she says "I ask for nothing, I can get by, but I know that there are others less lucky than I."). As for Captain Pheobus, he risks execution by his leader Frollo for disobeying a tyrannical order to burn the innocent alive. Also, Quasi doesn't even kill Frollo (he could have dropped him when he was hanging onto his cloak and Quasi was already in danger of falling and had learned that Frollo was responsible for his mother's death, yet he hung on and Frollo ended up doing himself in. Hardly a liberal movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:21, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:Not really. Yes, the Archdeacon was depicted in a good light, so in that sense, it promotes Christianity a bit more than, say, Beauty and the Beast (which depicts pretty much all the Christians in a very bad light in the village, while Belle, who is implied a few times to be an atheist or at the very least an agnostic, being depicted as a moral figure.). However, it isn't by much, as even ignoring Frollo (and I wouldn't even say he's THAT bad, anyway: Maleficent from the original Sleeping Beauty was a whole lot worse), Christianity as a whole is depicted in a very bad light (don't forget the whole Parisian mob scene with the Feast of Fools, or how the parishman, NOT Frollo, but another parishioner of Notre Dame, was pretty cold to Quasimodo. And I might as well add that the whole scene with the Parisian people was if anything even WORSE in the Disney film than in the book, where the latter was simply them dealing corporate punishment, while in the former, they just did it out of sadism.). And let's not forget that it was also controversially received and the Catholic Church actually had some irritation at the film for how it was depicted. Besides, it definitely can't qualify as a conservative film when they have one of the gargoyles explicitly lusting after Djali (both of whom are male) and being treated positively for it. The Castlevania animated series on Netflix right now does a FAR better job promoting Christianity than Hunchback did. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:01, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

== Possible movie to add ==

Based on [http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/09/15/mother-review-tedious-attack-christians-defense-mother-earth/ this Breitbart review], we should consider adding ''Mother!'' to this essay. As someone not very familiar with this movie, I won't do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

While I agree that the live action one was a gay propaganda film, Gaston is by no means conservative or admirable. He may be good but he's flat out arrogant. Because he does not get his way, he was going to try and threaten to throw Belle's father in the loony bin as blackmail to force Belle to marry him. The Beast, near the end, was willing to let her go because he loved her, even though her leaving could mean the last petal would fall before the spell would be broken. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:29, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm going to be blunt here, several on here are only on here for perceived anti-military, anti-capitalist, pro-feminist, anti-hunter, supporting evolution, etc, themes. If we applied the inconsistent logic here, we'd have to list a lot of otherwise conservative films as being liberal just because of that. I honestly think we're doing what we accuse the Leftists of: going so far that some things are viewed as "microagressions". [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm not saying some shouldn't be on here but others have no business being listed here. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

:Look, Mongoose, a lot of the films you're mentioning have those liberal themes present in a very blatant manner. It's not "perceived", especially not when the actual creators of the films make it extremely clear that it is meant to be that. And as far as Gaston, another editor mentioned him being conservative and hard-working. I really can't speak regarding what Gaston's politics are (and personally, regardless of politics, I consider anyone who does something like threatening a man they knew to be innocent into the insane asylum to force that man's daughter's hand in marriage to be scum), but I do know that Beauty and the Beast has a definite pro-feminist theme, considering even Linda Woolverton made it explicitly clear it was meant to push the feminist agenda (as if the fact that the overall story strongly demonized the concept of marriage via Belle hating the concept, not just marrying Gaston, but even the possibility of being a wife, or how the only three girls who have any interest in marriage are depicted as dumb blondes wasn't blatant enough). And it also doesn't help that it actually promoted premarital relations and even infidelity in a positive light in the form of Lumiere. Oh, and another thing, Belle was actually acting just as arrogant if not even moreso in the original film. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Belle, who doesn't even imply that she believes in God at all, is considered by the story to be a grand moral figure, while the other villagers, who based on the lyrics are devoted Christians, are depicted as idiotic monsters. And Star Wars, George Lucas made it very clear that it was meant to promote the Vietcong, not to mention the Prequel Trilogy outright demonized the concept of even having a military, and the Jedi even promoted moral relativism twice. Besides, that's why we have a "debatable whether liberal" section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:09, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I am wondering, should we also have a conservative movie section? [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:We technically already have that section, it's called "Debatable whether Liberal." [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:58, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, if you are going to cite that it promotes feminism because the director or so-and-so on set said so, then could we at least ask for citations or something? I didn't even know that Beauty and the Beast was MEANT to push feminism. Information like that might be helpful to people. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

BTW, I thought of adding the movie "The Big Green" to the list of leans liberal. The reason being is that one of the characters makes some comment about "Reaganomics" being responsible for the bad local economy and also one of the soccer players was an anchor baby and one of the coaches, who was a sheriff, was able to eventually get him and his illegal mother a way to stay. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, next time you try to add in a post, try not to delete a prior post when adding it in, please? Anyways, I'll definitely make sure I supply any citations for that when I have the opportunity. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

I've noticed an interesting trend. Almost all of the ones rated conservative are at least two decades old while loads of the ones on here as liberal are less than two decades old and loads are a decade old or less. It seems that we're running out of new conservative films. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Well, that's what we're gonna get with Hollywood choosing their leftist politics over, you know, actually trying to tell a good story. Still... there's still some films made today that are definitely conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==About Mulan==
I think it was the Xuans or something, not the Huns. It may have just been pronounced that way because the X may be pronounced like an H in Chinese or something. Also, it's debatable that it's liberal because Mulan does all of that to save her father's life. He wouldn't have made it due to his older age. She was at least doing some honor to her father by risking her life to protect him from going off to a war she didn't think he'd live through. Also, she did risk her neck to save her country despite being looked down upon for being a woman. (That's actually counter Leftist in a way because the Leftist whine about being discriminated against and support policies that hurt their country. Mulan, on the other hand, had no guarantee that she would get honored for what she did. In fact, she knew quite well she could be executed for pretending to be a fictional brother of hers. Also, the character Mulan is a Chinese legend. On the other hand, the ancestor worship was a form of paganism, but, on the other hand, probably was historically accurate. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
:Most of that (save for maybe the Xuans) was already mentioned when I moved Mulan to the Debatable whether Liberal section. I also noted that it was actually very pro-Military as a Conservative point. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:55, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Das Boot? Anti-American? ==

Whoever posted Das Boot on this page obviously didn't see the same movie I saw. Das Boot is, literally, the greatest war film ever made, and it is not anti-American, or pro-American, or pro-Nazi. If anything, it is anti-war, but being anti-war is not exclusive to the Liberal camp. I'm opposed to war, and I'm a former soldier, but I'm for American victory, but not for war for the sake of war. Liberals are not anti-war, but anti-American victory.

Das Boot is about a bunch of Germans who have to get into a steel tube that can submerge underwater, and have to survive a voyage in 1942, and by this year of the war it really sucks being aboard a German submarine because the Allies are getting much better at defending their convoys. It starts out with the sailors and officers at a party getting completely drunk, which is important, because these guys know the hell that awaits them. These guys are about to go aboard the next day aboard a machine where, for the next several weeks they have to live in very tight, confined spaces, for most of them not seeing the sun so it bleaches out their skin for lack of Vitamin D. The film vividly captures this in all it's disgusting glory, from the scene where they have to eradicate the crabs that stowed-away (and not the sea-going crabs), to the scene where the officers are picking out the mold that has appeared on their bread so they can eat!

There is one dedicated Nazi aboard, and he's from Mexico, but he only has one scene where he talks about believing in the Nazi cause, and it's promptly followed by the captain ordering the song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" to be played aboard the ship. This is not interpreted as hyperbolic patriotism under the belief they'll end up shopping in Piccadilly when the war is over, but a way to let off some steam and even to admire their enemies. The captain even criticizes the regime a bit, wondering where the air cover they're supposed to get from Hermann Goering. Where are their fleets screening the North Sea?

We get into the tedium of operating the sub, with a couple of incidents where the captain is frustrated that he can't engage enemy fleets to support other sub attacks because they're just too damn far away. They can hear them, but the sub only moves at roughly 10 knots on a good day if they're not submerged, even slower when they are because they're usually on batteries. When they do initially engage, they are chased away by a destroyer, and this is one of the few WWII sub films I know of where the sub doesn't retaliate against the destroyers because fighting destroyers is extremely difficult even if everything is going well for you because destroyers move and turn very fast. When they do manage to sink a ship, they're shocked to learn that the convoy didn't send anyone out to help these poor guys, and in a tragic scene, the sub has to back away from survivors who are trying to swim to them, and they can't take them on because to do so would be detrimental to them; too many guys aboard could affect if they can even submerge, affect their food stores, and other issues, so they have to let them drown.

Then they have orders to go through the Straits of Gibraltar, which is heavily defended, in order to be able to operate in the Mediterranean. Getting those orders is rough on morale, because everyone knows it's practically a suicide mission. When they make the attempt, we get one of the most horrendously riveting scenes in all filmdom; the depth-charging scene, which lasts several freakin' minutes. If you've never seen this before, you're wondering when this is going to end! This is intentional because the film's screenplay was written by a former German sub-commander, and he wanted you to know what it was like for these guys. They bottom out, and are so far deep it's amazing they weren't crushed by the water pressure. Are they going to survive? Are they ever going to get the sub to surface again? They have to put the crew on O2 and get most of them to sleep in order that they do not use up their remaining O2. When they do surface, you just don't care that they're Germans, but just Men who are trying to survive!!

And that's what real war is like. Once, I was stupid enough to ask my grandfather, who survived Guadalcanal and Okinawa, what the worst thing to happen to America was, and I thought he'd say the 60's or something, and he said WWII. When I said, "Why? We won," he looked at me as if I said something stupid, and he replied, "Son, you win a war like you win an earthquake." When you're in it, you've got ONE thing on your mind - survival. Sure, you want to succeed at missions, because, like the captain of the sub in Das Boot, you want that success to contribute to victory in the hope that the war will end! Nobody wants to die, and for those who end up dying on the battlefield we hope that their deaths were not in vain. But, sometimes, in real war, they are, because sometimes it doesn't matter if you succeed at your mission or not, as in the case of Das Boot at the end. We can admire an enemy's valour and still be patriots.

==xXx: Return of Xander Cage==
My father watched this film and he believes that it depicts the american military as bad.
I seriously believe that the movie is indeed some liberal crap. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Star Wars: The Last Jedi ==

I would recommend including Star Wars: The Last Jedi to the list. Whilst it was well received by film critics, It only got a [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/ 46% audience satisfaction]. A suspected major reason for this is fans being disillusioned by the massive inclusion of [http://redpilltimes.com/feminist-sjw-garbage-the-last-jedi-worst-film-of-2017/ SJW propaganda] in the franchise. This caused fans to [https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/968916/Star-Wars-Solo-FLOP-fan-BOYCOTT-Will-Disney-FIRE-Kathleen-Kennedy-Last-Jedi-box-office boycott] Solo, and as a result Solo was a box office flop. --[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 09:47, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
:Well, Star Wars as a whole definitely is debatable regarding its politics (the Prequel Trilogy and Return of the Jedi definitely came closer to being left-wing in its outlook at least), but yeah, it pushed left-wing elements to a far greater extent, so we probably should note that bit. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:50, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
::I included a small bit about The Last Jedi in the essay. I think it is a shame that this has happened. I used to love Star Wars when it was all about plot, but now it is all about pushing the SJW agenda. This really is a low point in the Star Wars franchise and there is talk about boycotting episode 9 which should be interesting.--[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 21:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

== ''Call Me by Your Name'' ==

If ''Call Me by Your Name'' depicts "pedophilia", then so does ''[[Dirty Dancing]]'' (1987), in which the ages of the two lovers is exactly the same. [[User:FredJ|FredJ]] ([[User talk:FredJ|talk]]) 17:58, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

== The Terminator movies ==

The first movie was fairly neutral, but Terminator 2 had some anti-war Propaganda. Genisys and Dark Fate really push Feminism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

== Made a suggestion to add two movies as possibly liberal ==

There was definitely a more feminist agenda in Incredibles 2, and likely, though, unlike Incredibles 2, I haven't seen it and can only rely on heresay, but have heard it from MANY sources, that Toy Story 4 did as well. Plus Toy Story 4, like Finding Dory, had another covert lesbian couple in the background, though unlike Finding Dory, Disney didn't even TRY to deny it this time. Also, some may wonder if Forky, a spork, and who has a rainbow painted on his feet, is supposed to be a covert reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, you mean Disney's actually CONFIRMED, directly, that the two ladies were a lesbian couple? Could you give a source? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:17, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

I cannot say they confirmed it, rather they didn't try and deny it. For instance, I now believe there was a lesbian couple in Finding Dory. However, when asked about it, Disney basically neither confirmed or denied, but told the Guardian "They can be whatever you want them to be": https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/09/finding-dory-lesbian-couple-disney-gay-characters

However, when some LGBT groups praised the lesbian couple snuck into Toy Story 4, in much the way that they did in Finding Dory where you almost had to be looking for it to find it, Disney did NOT bother to try and deny the claims in any way this time: https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/123834/toy-story-4-has-a-small-but-important-moment-of-lgbtq-representation/

The Gay Times article that mentioned the Lesbian Couple in Finding Dory says that Disney and Ellen Degeneres denied it as a certain thing. However, as far as I can find, I can find nothing from Disney denying the allegations this time around.

Furthermore, though there is nothing other than circumstantial evidence on this, as the character is clearly identified as a "he" here, one must wonder if the character Forky, who is actually a spork (which I heard is a transgender symbol) and who also has a rainbow (a known LGBT symbol on his foot) is also a subtle reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (EDT)

First, Toy Story 4 is racist, now it promotes TRANSGENDERISM?! I give up. [[User:BernieandTrumpFan|BernieandTrumpFan]] ([[User talk:BernieandTrumpFan|talk]])

I don't think it's racist. However, some sources are saying it's feminist. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]])

== South Park Movie ==

I'm removing this one from the list. Any objections?

Just out of curiosity, how come it's being removed? --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 13:03, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

The South Park creators are libertarians. They recently came out as "Republicans." In attempting to create and release this movie, they faced liberal censorship. The MPAA was worried people might be ''offended''. I think the better question to ask would be, "Why was it put here in the first place?" ---BernieandTrumpFan

Oh, okay. I almost forgot about them having been libertarian. --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

==Angry Birds 2 is liberal==

New American, a conservative source, has stated that they push "climate change" and are even partnering with the UN to push the climate agenda.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/33297-angry-birds-movie-2-global-warming-propaganda-for-tots
[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:25, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

== Suggestions ==

The Exorcist:
Uncut version features a blasphemous and pedophilia scene featuring child actor Linda Blair pleasuring herself with a crucifix.

Hellraiser franchise
Demonic themes, torture, graphic murder.

Ichi the Killer
Several themes of nihilism, rape, torture, BDSM, crime.

Battle Royale
Anti-government, banned from release in the U.S. after columbine.

Audition
Pro feminism, nihilism, torture.

Oldboy
Revenge motif, character is a drunken adulterer, incest.

Spawn
Main character goes to hell and is revived by Satan to be a footsoldier and is treated as the good guy.

House of 1000 Corpses franchise
Paints southerners as evil satanists. Several instances of torture, blasphemy, rape, and other unspeakable actions.

Lost Highway
Nihilistic film liked by columbine shooters.

Harry Potter franchise
Pro witchcraft, feminism, homosexuality.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Paints slaughterhouse workers as evil cannibals.

Fight Club
Overtly nihilist pro anarchy terrorist film.

*Regarding Exorcist, was that BEFORE or DURING her demonic possession? Because if it's the latter, I don't think that was a promotion of blasphemy (and if anything showcased something was deeply wrong about her). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:08, 14 November 2019 (EST)

== Add a disclaimer? ==

I think there should be a disclaimer or warning at the top of all "Worst Liberal..." articles saying something to the effect of "We do not care if a movie/TV show/video game is considered a 'classic' or that it's a famous movie/TV show/video game that many people have nostalgia for. If it has liberal elements and/or the creators of a certain movie/TV show/video game had some liberal agenda in mind when they crafted the story's narrative, we will call it out. Just because people love movies doesn't mean that Hollywood isn't trying to push a liberal agenda with them." As an example, many people love the Star Wars movies, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of "the Force" is based on Pantheism, which is un-biblical. It also does not change the fact that George Lucas based the Ewoks on the Vietcong based on his slanted misunderstanding of the Vietnam War. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:Sounds okay to me - after all, there is a similar header in the Worst Liberal TV Shows essay article. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:22, 19 May 2020 (EDT)
::Speaking of Worst Liberal TV Shows' header, was there any similar event in movies to the Rural Purge in there? We might need to note that.
::And agreed, we definitely need to post that up top, especially when liberal outlets are rather infamous for disguising their liberal agenda with more conservative traits. I'm hesitant to say George Lucas "misunderstood" the Vietnam War, though only because he made it pretty clear he knew the Vietcong were a terrorist group when he modeled the "heroes" of Star Wars after them when asked by James Cameron, back at the time he was filming it. Meaning he KNEW he was modeling the Rebels on genuine bad guys and not good people, yet did so anyway. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:36, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

The movie "2012" should be added to this list. It promotes a liberal inclusive agenda, and makes Conservative politicians the antagonists.

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2020-10-24T23:45:26Z

MAGAViking: /* Hello */

<center>''(this page redirects from [[CP:COMPORT]])''</center>
<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

[[Community Portal/Archives]]

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

== Cool article ==

I found a cool [http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-bless-this-food-except-for-the-atheist-at-table-12 article about atheism in the National Post]. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
==Error==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election,_2016 Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters'']] 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Overly long articles==
From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as [[Alger Hiss]], [[Elvis Presley]], and [[Barack Hussein Obama]], are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:::If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by [[User:FOIA]]. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::::Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
::::::That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
==Religion in America==
After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

=== My feedback ===

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/]

I hope the helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

== Is this article appropriate to cite? ==

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/media-ignores-imported-female-genital-mutilation/ this article] is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing [[female genital mutilation]] on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
:*Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
:*There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
:*That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
:*That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
:*That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
:*The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
:I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think it is an appropriate article to cite. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect ([http://religionnews.com/2017/04/27/the-splainer-what-is-female-genital-mutilation-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-islam/ the Dawoodi Bohra sect]) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in [[Obamagate timeline]] have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted ''clearly'' are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, ''The Hill'', wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/214242-will-obama-keep-his-promise-to-end-fgm-in-the-us] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/25/female-genital-mutilation-epidemic-obama-administration-hiding/]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano ==

I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in [[Donald Trump achievements]].

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:JDano's objections to [[Richard Dawkins' health]] have been adequately answered at [[Talk:Richard Dawkins' health]]. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.

:On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.

:I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the [[Obama's religion]] article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.

:Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.

:[[Sun Tzu]] said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.

:Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

::Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.

::JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.

::Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.

::When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.

::It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.

::Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.

::::JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the [[Trump Twitter]] account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So:
1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution.
2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you.
3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

===Just the facts, ma'am===
::Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over ''why'' Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1353941 here.] The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. [https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/fact-sheet-on-female-genital-mutilation-or-cutting.html State Dept. Fact Sheet] Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJDano&diff=1354127&oldid=1353746 talk page] rather than on this page. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===policy vs law===
JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. ''What is the difference between policy and law?''. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and
Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/how-lindsey-graham-stomped-the-tea-party/372521/] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.

:The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.

:Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.

:You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Man if you lost ''nobs'' then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::Conservative was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 this edit] and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

=== History of FGM in the United States ===

*[http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/10/16/00001/schubert_k.pdf FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF LAWS AND POLICIES]

*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/152651603766436324 Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States]

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted===
It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 several other edits that I reverted] because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? ''If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator.'' '''Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.'''

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, ''there's no source''. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but '''there MUST be a source.'''

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add ''constructive'' edits to the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:Edit conflict ;)

:JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
:If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::Lindsey Graham was in on the [[Arab_Spring#McCain_onboard|Operation Zero Footprint]] coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in [[Obama war crimes]]. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

== Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable? ==

{{welcome}}

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

=== Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible ===

[[File:Plate of cookies.jpg|thumb|300px|Some cookies to welcome you! [[File:Face-smile.svg|25px]]]] [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome to Wikipedia]], Conservative! I am [[User:This lousy T-shirt|This lousy T-shirt]] and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Knox490|your contributions]]. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], or feel free to leave me a message on [[User talk:This lousy T-shirt|my talk page]] or type ''{{tl|helpme}}'' at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia].
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
==Donald Trump's tweets==
We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page [[Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting?]] and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== Request for Conservative or another admin ==

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto [[User:1990'sguy/Sandbox]]? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

:I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes [[anti-Trump]] gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

::Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't '''possibly''' be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:

<big><big><big>BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!</big></big></big>

What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Block]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

:OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
:*Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
:*Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
:*Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course. :-)
:Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== If you see something, say something ==

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:::I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::::This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the [[Taylor Swift]] article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Political Directory==
We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete. This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like [[Elizabeth Warren]], the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected [[Ohio]], but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

:I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
::In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:::This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <nowiki><s>State</s></nowiki>.
{| class="wikitable"
|
* [[Alabama]]: Dec. 14, 1819
* <s>[[Alaska]]: Jan. 3, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Arizona]]: Feb. 14, 1912</s>
* <s>[[Arkansas]]: Jun. 15, 1836</s>
* <s>[[California]]: Sep. 9, 1850</s>
* <s>[[Colorado]]: Aug. 1, 1876</s>
* <s>[[Connecticut]]: Jan. 9, 1788</s>
* [[Delaware]]: Dec. 7, 1787
* <s>[[Florida]]: Mar. 3, 1845</s>
* <s>[[Georgia]]: Jan. 2, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Hawaii]]: Aug. 21, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Idaho]]: Jul. 3, 1890</s>
* [[Illinois]]: Dec. 3, 1818
* <s>[[Indiana]]: Dec. 11, 1816</s>
* <s>[[Iowa]]: Dec. 28, 1846</s>
* <s>[[Kansas]]: Jan. 29, 1861</s>
* [[Kentucky]]: Jun. 1, 1792
* <s>[[Louisiana]]: Apr. 30, 1812</s>
* <s>[[Maine]]: Mar. 15, 1820</s>
* [[Maryland]]: Apr. 28, 1788
* <s>[[Massachusetts]]: Feb. 6, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Michigan]]: Jan. 26, 1837</s>
* <s>[[Minnesota]]: May 11, 1858</s>
* <s>[[Mississippi]]: Dec. 10, 1817</s>
* [[Missouri]]: Aug. 10, 1821
|
* <s>[[Montana]]: Nov. 8, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Nebraska]]: Mar. 1, 1867</s>
* <s>[[Nevada]]: Oct. 31, 1864</s>
* <s>[[New Hampshire]]: Jun. 21, 1788</s>
* <s>[[New Jersey]]: Dec. 18, 1787</s>
* <s>[[New Mexico]]: Jan. 6, 1912 </s>
* <s>[[New York]]: Jul. 26, 1788</s>
* [[North Carolina]]: Nov. 21, 1789
* <s>[[North Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* [[Ohio]]: Mar. 1, 1803
* <s>[[Oklahoma]]: Nov. 16, 1907</s>
* <s>[[Oregon]]: Feb. 14, 1859</s>
* <s>[[Pennsylvania]]: Dec. 12, 1787</s>
* <s>[[Rhode Island]]: May 29, 1790</s>
* <s>[[South Carolina]]: May 23, 1788</s>
* <s>[[South Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Tennessee]]: Jun. 1, 1796</s>
* [[Texas]]: Dec. 29, 1845
* <s>[[Utah]]: Jan. 4, 1896</s>
* [[Vermont]]: Mar. 4, 1791
* [[Virginia]]: Jun. 25, 1788
* <s>[[Washington]]: Nov. 11, 1889</s>
* [[West Virginia]]: Jun. 20, 1863
* [[Wisconsin]]: May 29, 1848
* <s>[[Wyoming]]: Jul. 10, 1890</s>
|}
Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

'''Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers''' listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <nowiki><s>state</s> to state</nowiki>. Many thanks! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

==Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors==

I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictions. Those who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:

:You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
:You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
:You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
:You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
:I only need to call you one word...Traitor.
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

== Recent issue(s) ==

So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on [[Kate Upton]] and earlier [[Taylor Swift]], I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as [[User:RonaldB]] pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::::I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.

::::You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were ''Car and Driver'' followed by the ''National Geographic'' issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads ''National Geographic'' for just those few special photos. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

== Sam Chui's Little Theorem ==

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to [[Sam Chui's Little Theorem]]. And there are no citations in the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
:Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
::I deleted the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
== User:GinnyS ==
I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule. Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
:"Ginny" was a man.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

== Block flood ==

Apologies for the block flood--I got the process derailed onto the wrong account (main rather than bot). I will try to be more careful in the future. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

== Conservative of the Year 2017 ==

I created the article where we list the nominations for [[Conservative of the Year 2017]]. Feel free to add solid conservatives to the list who deserve mention. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 8 November 2017 (EST)

== New essay, need contributors ==

I have created a new essay: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Virtue:_Christian_vs_secular

I would welcome contributions from other CP users. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (EST)

== Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter ==

See [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]] for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still active, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2017.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
|+ Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016-7 (top 20 each category)
|+
!Twitter poster
!Increase in followers 2016
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
!Increase in followers 2017
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
!Increase in followers Dec. 17 2018
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
|-
|align="left"|Pres. (or-Elect) [[Donald J. Trump]]
|align="right"|+13,053,000
|align="right"|+237%
|align="right"|+26,905,000
|align="right"|+145%
|align="right"|+10,520,000
|align="right"|+23%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Ben Carson]]
|align="right"|+1,475,000
|align="right"|+136%
|align="right"|0
|align="right"|+0%
|align="right"|91,000
|align="right"|+3%
|-
|align="left"|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+105%
|align="right"|+328,000
|align="right"|+18%
|align="right"|-26,000
|align="right"|-1%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Hannity]]
|align="right"|+697,000
|align="right"|+56%
|align="right"|+1,266,000
|align="right"|+65%
|align="right"|+643,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Laura Ingraham]]
|align="right"|+550,000
|align="right"|+89%
|align="right"|+819,000
|align="right"|+73%
|align="right"|+575,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Ann Coulter]]
|align="right"|+463,000
|align="right"|+63%
|align="right"|+632,000
|align="right"|+53%
|align="right"|+279,000
|align="right"|+15%
|-
|align="left"|Judge [[Jeanine Pirro]]
|align="right"|+292,000
|align="right"|+222%
|align="right"|+479,500
|align="right"|+113%
|align="right"|+387,000
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Franklin Graham]]
|align="right"|+277,000
|align="right"|+59%
|align="right"|+565,000
|align="right"|+76%
|align="right"|+489,000
|align="right"|+37%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Palin]]
|align="right"|+226,000
|align="right"|+20%
|align="right"|+139,000
|align="right"|+10%
|align="right"|+16,000
|align="right"|+1%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tucker Carlson]]
|align="right"|+224,000
|align="right"|+89%
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+198%
|align="right"|+930,000
|align="right"|+65%
|-
|align="left"|[[Steven Crowder]]
|align="right"|+180,000
|align="right"|+122%
|align="right"|+177,000
|align="right"|+54%
|align="right"|+151,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
|align="right"|+166,000
|align="right"|+69%
|align="right"|+313,000
|align="right"|+77%
|align="right"|+362,000
|align="right"|+50%
|-
|align="left"|[[Mark Levin]]
|align="right"|+157,000
|align="right"|+30%
|align="right"|+346,000
|align="right"|+50%
|align="right"|+398,000
|align="right"|+39%
|-
|align="left"|[[James O'Keefe]]
|align="right"|+147,000
|align="right"|+198%
|align="right"|+136,000
|align="right"|+62%
|align="right"|+125,000
|align="right"|+35%
|-
|align="left"|[[Katie Pavlich]]
|align="right"|+145,000
|align="right"|+70%
|align="right"|+111,900
|align="right"|+32%
|align="right"|+131,000
|align="right"|+28%
|-
|align="left"|[[Allen West]]
|align="right"|+137,000
|align="right"|+29%
|align="right"|+132,000
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+15,000
|align="right"|+2%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Charles Krauthammer]]
|align="right"|+121,000
|align="right"|+20%
|align="right"|+135,000
|align="right"|+18%
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|-
|align="left"|[[Monica Crowley]]
|align="right"|+114,000
|align="right"|+42%
|align="right"|+84,000
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[Linda Suhler]], Ph. D.
|align="right"|+90,000
|align="right"|+48%
|align="right"|+73,000
|align="right"|+26%
|align="right"|+24,800
|align="right"|+7%
|-
|align="left"|Gov. [[Greg Abbott]]
|align="right"|+65,000
|align="right"|+40%
|align="right"|+129,300
|align="right"|+57%
|align="right"|+40,300
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[John Nolte]]
|align="right"|+46,000
|align="right"|+74%
|align="right"|+41,800
|align="right"|+38%
|align="right"|+8,900
|align="right"|+6%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dennis Prager]]
|align="right"|+28,000
|align="right"|+50%
|align="right"|+51,300
|align="right"|+60%
|align="right"|+47,100
|align="right"|+35%
|-
|align="left"|[[Hugh Hewitt]]
|align="right"|+42,000
|align="right"|+47%
|align="right"|+29,100
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+10,500
|align="right"|+7%
|-
|align="left"|[[Nikki Haley]]
|align="right"|+57,000
|align="right"|+47%
|align="right"|+746,000
|align="right"|+417%
|align="right"|+725,000
|align="right"|+78%
|-
|align="left"|Sen. [[Tim Scott]]
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+45%
|align="right"|+177,200
|align="right"|+108%
|align="right"|+39,000
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[Kellyanne Conway]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+1,376,000
|align="right"|+232%
|align="right"|+532,000
|align="right"|+27%
|-
|align="left"|Sher. [[David Clarke]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+540,000
|align="right"|+123%
|align="right"|-36,000
|align="right"|-4%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dan Scavino]], Jr.
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+196,000
|align="right"|+74%
|align="right"|+41,000
|align="right"|+9%
|-
|align="left"|[[Bill Mitchell]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+143,500
|align="right"|+85%
|align="right"|+89,000
|align="right"|+29%
|-
|align="left"|[[Wayne Dupree]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+136,100
|align="right"|+91%
|align="right"|+23,500
|align="right"|+8%
|-
|align="left"|[[Larry Kudlow]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+76,700
|align="right"|+73%
|align="right"|+53,800
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Kayleigh McEnany]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+39,100
|align="right"|+57%
|align="right"|+34,000
|align="right"|+31%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Sanders]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+1,206,000
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Candace Owens]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+634,000 +
|align="right"|+192% +
|-
|align="left"|[[Charlie Kirk]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+564,000
|align="right"|+208%
|-
|align="left"|[[Diamond and Silk]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+473,000
|align="right"|+99%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sebastian Gorka]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+175,000 +
|align="right"|+36% +
|-
|align="left"|[[John Bolton]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+168,000
|align="right"|+65%
|-
|align="left"|[[Chuck Woolery]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+158,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|[[Alana Mastrangelo]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+67,400
|align="right"|+85%
|-
|align="left"|[[Liz Wheeler]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+102,000
|align="right"|+72%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Davis]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+52,600
|align="right"|+62%
|-
|align="left"|Rep. [[Mark Meadows]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+100,000 +
|align="right"|+51% +
|-
|align="left"|[[Charles V. Payne]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+99,300
|align="right"|+49%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tim Young]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+58,700
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dylan Wheeler]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+100,200
|align="right"|+41%
|-
|align="left"|[[Buck Sexton]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+47,300
|align="right"|+38%
|}

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (EST)
:I just had a big mystery solved. Monica Crowley was originally named as one of Trump's top advisors (see [[Jared Kushner]] page. She backed out at the last minute. I always wondered what dirt the FBI had on her, But it's something different. [[Victor Pinchuk]] hired her as his DC lobbyist. [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/monica-crowley-registers-foreign-agent-lobbying-for-victor-pinchuk] She's probably making 3 or 4 times more as his attorney than she would on the National Security Council ([[Adam Waldman]] is being paid $40,000 a month). Pinchuk gave $29 million to the Clintons, and is behind [[Alexandra Chalupa]], [[Olga Bielkova]], and bunch of sources for the [[Steele dossier]].
:So there are two observations here about corrupt DC politics: One, given a choice, does a person go for temporary power and influence ([[NSC]] staff) or greed (big cash)? Secondly, this explains why Trump has had some difficultly in getting an retain staff (in addition to the illegal FISA surveillance on Trump staffers and appointees), qualified people are simply targeted, paid off, and outbid on government pay scales by Trump opponents. I'm sure she's not the first or only one. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 00:55, 12 November 2019 (EST)

==Twitter reactions on the news==

I try to produce web pages at Conservapedia that are useful, or even seem like they may be useful but at the time can't put my finger on what they may be useful for.

This is one of those times when a use has become uncovered. Several news events involving the top Twitterers took place this month, and now we can see its effect on their followers.

[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] was detained three days and then turned away from the United Kingdom for loving Great Britain when it was populated by the British. Her Twitter followers rose from 110,000 followers on March 2, 2018 to 133,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 21%).

[https://twitter.com/scrowder Steven Crowder] was suspended from Twitter seven days for uploading a comic video, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account uploaded many videos with anti-Jewish remarks and was left alone. Crowder's Twitter followers rose from 549,000 followers on March 2 to 583,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 6%).

Not to leave out events about other Twitter users, [[Paul Nehlen]], a competitor in Paul Ryan's Congressional race was removed from Twitter over a certain picture he had posted. Eventually you stop pursuing Twitter's rationales for removal of conservatives and just assume they are false.

And [https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton John Bolton], who was recently added by President Trump to his National Security team, had his Twitter followers rise from 264,000 on March 2 to 290,000 on March 23 (+ 10%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

:Specifically regarding Bolton, he now has nearly 306,000 followers as of the time I'm writing this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

:The month is not yet over and The Broward-County/Democrat-Party-disregard-of-gun-laws diversion circus swept in [http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle Laura Ingraham] this month to attack her for making a random remark about it in passing: Her Twitter followers rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,177,000 on March 31 (+ 3%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Conservative commentators [https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk Diamond and Silk] caught Facebook shadow-banning their account and after months of inquiry received a reply April 5, 2018 regarding their Facebook page, "your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community."

The two women replied: "So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:
*1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump?
*2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
*3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
*4. What content on our page was in violation?
*5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
*6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

"This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!"

On March 2, Diamond and Silk had 584,000 followers on Twitter. On April 8, their readership had grown to 621,000 (+ 6%) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (EDT)


The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11, 2018 interviewed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the halls of Congress, and some of the members of Congress actually held up a poster-sized photograph of Diamond and Silk and asked him if he recognized them or knew about the removal of their account from Facebook. Zuckerberg tried to change the subject to a more general question, but eventually replied that the removal was an error.

Diamond and Silks' followers on Twitter rose from 584,000 on March 2 by 84,000 to 668,000 on April 18 (+ 14%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

===Someone or more than one person is targeting top conservatives on Twitter===

[http://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow Wayne Dupree] is now claiming that he has noticed shadow-banning on his Twitter account. That makes seven top conservatives on Twitter members being targeted in an attempt to marginalize them: Brittany Pettibone, Steven Crowder, Paul Nehlen, Laura Ingraham, Diamond and Silk, Wayne Dupree and Feisty☀️FL [FL = Floridian] (@Feisty_FL).

[http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle [[Laura Ingraham]]] was able to get some publicity and conservative support regarding the boycott staged against her advertisers regarding her having showed skepticism against the attempt to add new gun-restriction laws to those laws that are already not being implemented. Her followers on Twitter rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,239,000 on April 18, a rise of 128,000 (+ 6%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

==April Fool's joke==

The ''Titanic'': built by experts. Ark: built by [[best of the public]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

== How would you guys convince an athiest about God? ==

Purely hypothetical, but I’m curious so see all the different tactics. [[User:GoodWeather|GoodWeather]] ([[User talk:GoodWeather|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

:The problem with your question is that it assumes atheists need to be convinced about the existence of God. God's existence is already obvious to everyone (see Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). The problem with atheists is not that they're unconvinced of God, it's that they reject God and His Word outright. Also, I can't convince anyone to submit God -- that's something God in His grace (alone) does to those He chooses to show mercy. If it weren't for God's opening up of the eyes of believers, none of us would submit to Him (see Romans 8:7-8, for example). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

::The "tactic" against you, "GoodWeather" is to boot you off the site, along with your many socks, for trolling, harassment, and outright lying. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

:::Another atheist who received [[atheist indoctrination]] in a poorly run public school. The telltale sign is that he cannot spell the word atheist correctly.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

::::It's a pity that Chawcer, who had geneyus, was so unedicated as well. He's the wuss speller I know of. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 10:31, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
:::::1990sguy nails it. If you're a sceptic, you're already decieved (see 2 Tim 2:26). IMHO, one should begin by desiring to free their mind from Satanic enslavement, and that would put you on the path of the knowledge of God. It's not always a straight line from disbelief to belief. You need a desire to free yourself from deception to start. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:29, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

== Twitter prune ==

I read in passing that Twitter was going to start pruning non-responsive accounts soon. I read the same thing about two months ago, and yet I didn't notice any difference in the follower count of conservatives that couldn't be explained by summer vacations.

But if so, this may mark the first time in about three years that conservatives will see a real downward "trend" (actually a one-time brief decrease). Who knows which accounts will be affected, how long it will take for them to recover from these corrections, and whether these removals will be administered fairly. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 04:22, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

:So far the purged accounts among conservatives with the largest number of followers have been mostly chicken feed:

::Donald Trump: -0.04%
::Sean Hannity: -2.0%
::Sarah Sanders: -0.1%
::Ben and Candy Carson: -3.4%
::Laura Ingraham: -0.3%

::Kellyanne Conway: -0.04%
::Michelle Malkin: -1.7%
::Tucker Carlson: -0.4%
::Ann Coulter: -0.9%
::Franklin Graham: -0.15%

::Sarah Palin: -3.9%

:I read in articles about the inflation of Twitter accounts that journalists reporting on it expected some political figures with a large popularity to have 40 or 50 percent inactive or fake followers. This brief survey shows this is not the case with conservative figures with large popularity.

:I think the reason for the faint exception in Ben and Candy Carson's and Sarah Palin's case, is that they had been inactive for a long period of time, so the people who subscribed to their accounts were going to wait until those conservatives posted "in person" rather than by their staffs, and when their feeds weren't being written by their staffs either, the zero newsfeed made their accounts easy to maintain (that is, not taking up any space) nor allowing any opportunity for those Twitter figures to say things with which these followers might disagree and cause them to unsubscribe.

:On the other hand, I also think these pruned subscribers possibly heard about these popular conservatives' Twitter accounts and made an impulse decision to subscribe to them due to their popularity, but weren't necessarily very committed to Twitter as a whole. Hence they left to do other things, but still holding out hope for the popular figures to come back (I am willing to bet that Rush Limbaugh is among these), they never deleted their account, but only monitored it sporadically.

:Now you know that these things are going on, don't be discouraged from politics or feel you have to keep silent if you notice it happening elsewhere or hear complaints of your fellow conservatives or sneers by liberals about decreasing follower counts. You're welcome. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (EDT)

==Shadowban evidence==
There is an online shadowban detector that I found today. To catch Twitter in the act before they find out about it and possibly change their search algorithms (they have done this for a different tool), I entered all 100 names on my Top Conservatives on Twitter list because I believe that time may be of the essence.

[https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort Nick Short] 139,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] 137,800 followers 
[https://twitter.com/TheMarkPantano Mark Pantano] 119,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818 RockPrincess] 104,400 
[https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit Jim Hoft] 101,900 followers 
[https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP Jack Burton] 71,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/Feisty_FL Feisty☀️FL] 18,920 followers 

These are "quality" shadowbanned. I guess because they don't have enough liberal "quality". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

:Twitter spoke out yesterday about accusations of shadowbanning:

::"ACTUALLY what we do doesn't TECHNICALLY qualify as "shadowbanning." We just make certain users harder to see based on our totally opaque, uncontestable, unilaterally-determined definition of 'relevance.'"

:I was just pulling your leg; that was a satire written by Jack Burton above. He actually may not even know that he himself is shadowbanned. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

::BTW FYI, I checked, and the Conservapedia Twitter account (@Jay_pe) is not shadowbanned. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

== Yay! HTTPS! ==

I'm glad we managed to get HTTPS set up! I know it's a bit of a nuisance, but it is a good idea! It seems the PayPal plugin is still using HTTP, but this is still better than before! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:It does seem that the favicon on the home page is not loading correctly, also. It seems to work elsewhere just fine. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
::For the record, the favicon doesn't show up at all on Chrome (and I don't think it ever has). This might be something that should be fixed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:::Scratch that--it's working now. I don't know if the issue got fixed, or it was a temporary glitch. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:02, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:::That's odd... I use Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and a number of other browsers but not chrome. I'd never noticed. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:04, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
::::I see what you mean. I tried it in a chrome install, and couldn't see it either. Do we need to add it as a Base64 Encoded Image or some other such nonsense to get it to work? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

:::::I really should stop edit flooding here, but one more thing. Someone else with a similar problem said the following:
:::::{{cquote|Instead of using the filename favicon.ico for my icon, I renamed it to something else, ie myIcon.ico. Then I just used [this]:

:::::<nowiki><link rel="shortcut icon" href="myIcon.ico" type="image/x-icon" /></nowiki>}}

:::::The full discussion I'm talking about is found [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16375592/favicon-not-showing-up-in-google-chrome here]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS URL update project ==

The Web is changing a great deal. One of these changes is the shift from the [[HyperText Transfer Protocol]] to [[HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure]] (which we have recently done in part here at CP as well). While HTTPS is not perfect (and it will continue to be less than ideal at least until/unless we get DNSSEC) this is a good move, as it provides some security and privacy using TLS. 

The problem for us is that we now have a great deal of links which still refer to the old protocol. 1990'sguy pointed out this issue and suggested that I use my bot to update our links. I don't have the ability to automatically test URLs for TLS support, so I'm making a list of URLs to be updated. If there are any websites linked to anywhere on CP which have upgraded to HTTPS but are still linked to under HTTP, please add them to [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project|the list]]. I will then attempt to verify that they are using sufficiently complete HTTPS configurations, and then do my best to apply the change to all CP articles and perhaps some other pages as well. 

I have never done this before, so it may take a little time and fine-tuning to get it right. Also, it will take time to process these updates on all 46,236+ articles, plus a yet undecided number of other pages. Thank you for your patience and assistance! Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

:''And if this all sounds like nonsense, doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to matter, that's fine. Just let me know if anything catches fire, and other than that, I'll try to stay out of the way and not break anything.'' --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

==Overflow business==

Conservapedia has already reached 686,043,027 visits. It was a only a short time ago that I heard this site had reached 600,000,000 visits. Andy deserves a lot of credit and should be proud for having built such a successful conservative website under his helm. Thanks, Andy! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (EDT)
=== Conservapedia - Alexa rankings ===
[[File:Conservapedia v Rush page views.png|thumbnail|400px|center|November 2007 Conservapedia vs. Rush Limbaugh]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Alexa.jpg||thumbnail|400px|center|April 2008]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:ConservapediaAlexaMay2010.jpg|thumbnail|400px|center|May 2010]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Conservapedia web traffic in 2010 and 2011.png|thumbnail|400px|center|2011 and 2012]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Conservapedia - Alexa ranking - December 23 2018.png|thumbnail|400px|center|12-23-2018]]

== Hi everyone ==

I'm new here. Is there anything important I should know before doing stuff? How do I add images to articles? How do I get around CAPTCHA's? Thanks, [[User:Edenfaithful|Edenfaithful]] ([[User talk:Edenfaithful|talk]]) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (EST)
:Make substantial edits, show your good faith, obey Conservapedia's rules, and establish a good reputation. Then Andy will promote you to SkipCAPCHA. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (EST)
== Millenials mispronouncing common English words ==

Some Millenials do so much social media instead of hearing voices on TV and radio (unless it's their peers or near-peers on YouTube) and texting instead of talking to friends, that they mispronounce what were thought to be common English words. I saw one pronounce "thorough" thō’ rō’ instead of thur’-ō. Another had taught her mom to say osurring instead of occuring. It's really jarring when it happens. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (EST)

== Question (VargasMilan's April fool's joke that DavidB4 fell for) ==

Why is cream more expensive than milk? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 21:10, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

:There is less of it produced. Depending on the cow breed, age, period, diet, and more, raw milk typically consists of about 3.5% – 5% cream, with the rest being what we know as "skim milk" (what is left after the cream is skimmed off the top). Skim milk (which used to be considered almost worthless, and fed to animals or used in lower-quality cooking) is now sold as a health food, as are 1% fat and 2% fat milks. Even "Whole milk" has some cream removed, bringing it down to 3.25% cream. However, there is only so much cream they can take out of the standard milk supply. Cream is needed for a variety of dairy products, such as cheeses, butter, and ice cream, and it is also used as-is in some cases, such as adding to coffee. Basically, it goes back to supply and demand. There is a somewhat limited supply (compared to skim milk), and great deal of demand. Besides, cream is considered the best part, so they know they can charge people more for the best milk product. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:55, 1 April 2019 (EDT)

::Wrong! It's because the cows ''hate'' to squat over those little cartons.

::Hope everyone had a great April Fool's day, especially DavidB, who fell for my prank. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:28, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

:::I wondered if there was a relation between the date and the odd question...Sorry, I'll try to assume the worst in everyone from now on, rather than taking the time to answer even odd questions. ;) --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (EDT)
::::Uhhh....Thanks, Conservative. I think. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

:::::He he! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 22:57, 2 April 2019 (EDT)

== Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions ==
CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221367707_Don't_bite_the_newbies_How_reverts_affect_the_quantity_and_quality_of_Wikipedia_work this archived discussion useful.] If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
:Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
::Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it '''cannot''' be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
:::It shouldn't be at the expense of limiting CP's user and contributor base, either. Perhaps 90/10 has a negative impact, sometimes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 14:53, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

== In the News ==

Maybe this should be added to In the News:
“Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer said allegations could help undermine abortion rulings: 'Part of what motivated Christine'” reports Fox News. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-attorney-says-she-came-forward-to-get-asterisk-on-kavanaughs-name-ahead-of-abortion-rulings.amp) - JobsNotMobs

== Added topic ==

Hello!

I noticed that some image upload requests I made have been up for a few weeks and not handled yet. DavidB4 usually takes care of these, but I'm sure he has a lot on his plate, so I was wondering if maybe another admin with upload privileges could add them in. I think there's one other guy waiting on his requests, too. No rush, just wanted to ask. Thank you!
[[User:Teakin88|Teakin88]] ([[User talk:Teakin88|talk]]) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

:Thanks for the heads-up! Unfortunately, there's an apparent backlog at the page, so that's why the requests are taking so long. It's not uncommon for such requests to take so long. I let DavidB4 know about your message. Since your requested images are not from Wikimedia Commons, I, unfortunately, cannot upload them myself because of my lack of expertise regarding licensing (I'm sure they're appropriate to upload, but I'd rather let more knowledgeable editors handle such images). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

::I have been hoping another admin would help, but if not, I'll get there eventually. I have a lot going on IRL for me right now, so I haven't had much time to help out here. Sorry for the wait! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:28, 5 November 2019 (EST)

:::Unfortunately, I don't know enough about copyright law to help with the non-commons images. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:26, 5 November 2019 (EST)

== Pages for expansion ==

Hello! As you can see, I am new here, and have just started editing. May I ask, is there a page for stub articles or articles that need to be expanded? Thank you. {{unsigned|Malcolmdavis}}

:We don't have a page like that. The best thing to do is look for stubs in the topics you're interested in, and expand those.

:Very important -- always use reliable sources and encyclopedic wording, and adhere to CP's style guidelines. I have posted some helpful links on your user talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:00, 12 December 2019 (EST)

::While we don't have a managed page like that, the wiki can give you a list of pages with very little contnet. This includes disambiguation pages, index pages, and other stuff so it is a little messy. However, you could try taking a look at [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ShortPages&limit=300&offset=240 Special:ShortPages] and see what you find. It' snot a clean list or easy to use, but you can try it if you would like. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (EST)

==Top conservative Twitter accounts suspended while everyone is getting ready for the holidays==

Two of my [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]] list members were suspended this week: Linda Suhler [a PhD] (387,460) and CC (300,300) @ChatbyCC, formerly known as Christie Chat). They have been on my list since August 1, 2015 and January 3, 2017, respectively. Twitter announced that they will be suspending accounts at-will in the future. There is no way the suspensions of these two accounts are not strategic by Twitter to promote liberalism. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:06, 20 December 2019 (EST)

:Typical. Basically they have built a massive network, where most people are. Now they are quietly de latforming all conservatives, in an attempt to make liberalism look like the norm. Only the conservatives see it happening, so everyone else is oblivious that it is more of a psyops move than a culture shift. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (EST)

== How to add an image file to Conservapedia? ==

Just curious, how do I add an image in the form of a file to [[Conservapedia]] so I can use it to add to pages? Also, which types of images am I allowed to "borrow" from the internet? Thanks! - Liberaltears
:[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 19:20, 20 January 2020 (EST)

::Thanks! [[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] (8:12, 20 January 2020)

:::As for which images you can use, you should ideally find ones which have been released as [[Public Domain]] or under a [[Creative Commons]] license. Some good sources are listed below. If you especially want an image wich is not available under one of these conditions, and there is no suitable substitute, it may still be usable under the [[Fair use]] doctrine, but it's better not to do this; I can give a second opinion as to whether it might be okay to use an image in this way, but I'm not a lawyer.

:::*[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiMedia Commons]
:::*[https://www.flickr.com/search/?license=2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C9 Flickr]
:::*[https://pixabay.com PixaBay]
:::*[https://morguefile.com Morguefile.com]
:::*[http://www.publicdomainpictures.net PublicDomainPictures.net]
:::--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (EST)
:::: Thanks! [[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] 1:23, 21 January 2020

== Iowa Caucuses ==

Hello everyone! I just wanted to let it be known; I noticed that some additions had been made to my page on the [[2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses]], and I in turn edited some of that and made more additions myself, mostly revolving around whether the caucus was in fact rigged by the Democrats to deny Sanders a clear victory. Personally, I have no trouble believing that it was, but since it hasn't been definitively proven, I've changed the language a bit to make it more a matter of opinion, while leaving up all the information and sources that show the basis for this opinion, and how likely it is that the results were in fact manipulated. Just wanted to let everyone know about that. -[[User:Teakin88|Teakin88]]

== Template permission request ==

Hello, I'd like to request [[Conservapedia]] sysop permission to make a template titled "Template:Republican establishment". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 11:07, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
:I dunno; is this an effort to divide the GOP establishment and Tea Party from Trump Republicans in an election year? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 12:49, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
::No, I'm not trying to promote division, I just thought that it could be a productive addition to Conservapedia to use for specification purposes on many of the pages regarding establishment Republicans and groups such as the [[National Republican Senatorial Committee|NRSC]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
::So do I have permission to create the template or not? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
:::I don't quite understand the use case for this template...What will it contain? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

== Strange occurrence... ==

Can someone tell me what just happened? I remember making a page creation on [[Eugene Scalia]] just about half an hour ago as well as a few other edits, but it seems that they were somehow reverted/hidden mysteriously and I couldn't find any log details on it. I know that there was a server error or something similar to such just a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure how that would cause a revert of my edits. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

:So sorry! That was a hosting glitch. Please repost those edits - you might still have them in your cache in your browser. Thanks for understanding!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:50, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

::Terry H's MPR post also disappeared. Nothing under Terry's H's contribs for today. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 14:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

:::My browser is set on private mode, so I can't re-access the information. Would the data be saved elsewhere? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

::::Beats me. My computer crashed about the same time. I had the MPR Template open when it did with Terry's post, but when I rebooted it disappeared completely. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 15:56, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

:::::Hopefully the [[Deep state]] didn't hack the server and our computers and proceed to bleach bit the data. You get the joke? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

::::::Could be, could be! Maybe they were reading Conservapedia, got fed up and couldn't take anymore. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:41, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

:::::::Maybe Hillary's Deep state shilleries got triggered! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

::::::::No. It was the Chinese intelligence service [[AI]] that read all the [[ChiCom flu]], [[Chinese virus]], [[CCP virus]], ''et al'' redirects created in the last few days. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 17:08, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::Ah, so that's why...haha!
:::::::::Liberaltears, it sounds like that data is gone. Sorry! Andy is right--your browser could potentially hold on to recent posts, but only until the browser is closed. If it is still open from then, literally try using the back button dozens of times until you reach the edit page for the article when you made the post. If you have closed your browser since then, though, the private browsing mode would have prompted it to be purged. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:45, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::You're right, the original data was purged. However, I took the effort and recreated the page on [[Eugene Scalia]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 18:07, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

Sorry about that--I know it is a real nuisance to re-write content! The problem should be fixed now--let us know if you have more issues like this. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 11:02, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

::And...it still isn't fixed. Sorry, I'm seeing errors again too. We're looking into it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

Just curious, does it occur for any of you that while you're trying to make a significant edit, when you click the "preview" option to just to make sure you didn't make a huge mistake, especially if it's regarding a template, that the loading appears to take forever and that the preview simply doesn't show up? That happened to me while I was creating the page on [[Kelli Ward]], and it was somewhat of a nuisance. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 17:27, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

:I've had that happen before. I typically find that when that happens, if I open another conservapedia page in a new tab, it fails to load. I think when you try to see a preview, it contacts the server. If the server is having a problem, the preview will also fail to work, therefore. If I try just submitting an edit when that is happening, it usually fails too. It seems like loading a preview could be done using client-side scripts (right in your browser), but from experience, I would say it does not. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

::As far as today went, while I was editing, all [[Conservapedia]] pages loaded well most of the time when I open them in a new tab, although the server did seem somewhat slower than usual. However, the "preview" option for editing still doesn't work for all pages whose content is above around 100 bytes. For instance, it works if I'm making a redirect page, but not for content pages.

::By the way DavidB4, since you're around, I was wondering when you might finish uploading all the images for [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Photo_requests.2C_2.2F7.2F20|this long list]]. No rush or anything, but I'm largely curious if some of my image requests [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#February_26.2C_2020_image_requests_by_Liberaltears|here]] and [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#March_16.2C_2020_image_requests_by_Liberaltears|here]] that aren't covered under a Creative Commons or Public Domain license can be uploaded under the Fair Use license. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 18:46, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

:::You're right, the preview isn't working at all for me, now.
:::In regard to the upload requests, I'm trying to get through them a few at a time, but there is a serious backlog, and it looks like I'm the only one working on it right now. I will try to give it more priority, but it is definitely going to take me some time. Thank you for understanding! What I can see by skimming through the list is that you have a lot from WikiMedia Commons and Flickr...that's good! I'll just check each one to make sure they are usable as I go. As for the other sources, I will need to check one-by-one. As examples though, ballotpedia.org and studybreaks.com do not seem to publish a copyright policy, so I must assume that their content is under full copyright. It would be better if we could use a different sources, but if there are no others available, we might be able to use these. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Alright, thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:09, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

== Improvising [[Template:Officeholder/senator]]... ==

Hello, I'd like to request an [[Conservapedia:Administrators|administrator]] to make a following change to [[Template:Officeholder/senator]], since I can't simply edit it due to the template being locked. As far as I know, whenever the template is used in a page, all the information needs to be filled properly for everything to appear in the correct manner. This means that if the information about the state isn't filled in, {{{state}}} will show up, and if the terms aren't filled in, {{{terms}}} will show up, etc. (the only exception is the “|succeeded=”, as “Incumbent (no successor)” shows up if left blank) However, the “|former=(y or n)” is the only exception, as if it's left out, it's automatically assumed that “former=n”, as it's only necessary to imply that a senator has left office. I would like to request replacing this part with a part such that:

*when using the [[Template:Officeholder/senator]], it would be filled as “|status=(s, j, or f)”
*if the information is not inputted, “{{{status}}}” would simply show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
*if “|status=s”, then “Senior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
*if “|status=j”, then “Junior” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
*if “|status=f”, then “Former” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
*if “|status=(anything filled in except for s, j, or f)”, then “{{{status}}}” will show up before “U.S. Senator from {{{state}}}”
--[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:39, 31 March 2020 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a problem. Writing/editing templates gives me a headache, but I might be able to fix this. If it is unlocked, would you be able to fix it? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

::No, unfortunately I wouldn't be able to do it by myself. Having joined this site less than a year ago ([[Special:Log/Liberaltears|see here]]), I have gained much experience with [[CP]] formatting, but I'm not a hard-core expert, especially not with formatting for creating/improvising templates. While I can somewhat comprehend how certain inputs in template source codes correspond to certain functions (as I've done such in analyzing to fix [[Template:Officeholder/state representative|this template]]), I don't know enough to add in all the necessary information for my proposed improvisation. Since the template was locked anyway, I was hoping that a sysop would be able to do it. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:08, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

:::Update: I was able to improvise the template. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 13:21, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Fixing a mistake using the Infobox officeholder template... ==

Hello, I just created [[Donald Bolduc|this page]] that includes [[Template:Infobox officeholder]], but I don't understand how the formatting works when adding military info. I analyzed the source of the template, but I still don't understand how to fix the error. Can someone figure it out and fix it on the page? I have no idea. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:41, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
:I went through the same thing on Gen. [[Mike Flynn]]'s page. It was a nightmare. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_T._Flynn&action=edit#editform Here's how I fixed it, if it's any help.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 22:57, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

::I just added a "|military=y" in the template in the [[Donald Bolduc]] page, but that didn't seem to make a difference. Also, the template used in the [[Michael T. Flynn]] page is [[Template:Officeholder]], and the one used in the [[Donald Bolduc]] page is [[Template:Infobox officeholder]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 23:10, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

== Question about files that can be uploaded under Fair use... ==

Just curious, can Getty images be uploaded to [[CP]] under the Fair Use license? Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 13:51, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
:Probably not. That's why Getty has a watermark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 14:02, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

::Okay, thank you RobSmith! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 14:10, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

:::Agreed, Getty is a company which makes money from the sale of images. This sort of company is not going to appreciate it if we try to make a "Fair Use" claim on them. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:16, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

::::Thank you for the further specification, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 14:25, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

== Please look into this ==

https://www.conservapedia.com/Communications_Act_of_1934 this page is pretty vauge then has a hyper-link to this liberal site https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10082.pdf which is written by this democrat liberal who works for the ACLU of all places. https://www.aclu.org/news/by/kate-ruane/ so if someone could change this or look into it, thanks.
:FAS is a [[CIA]] front; I don't know if it should be described as "liberal". Sounds conspiratorial. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 17:17, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

== Changing font colors... ==
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|-bgcolor=#cccccc
|- valign="center"
| [[File:SenatorCollins.jpg|237px]] || [[File:Sara Gideon.jpg|200px]]
|-
| <center>'''[[Susan Collins]]''' (likely nominee)</center> || <center>'''[[Sara Gideon]]''' (likely nominee)[[File:Democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|20px]]</center>
|}
Just curious, how do I make words appear in a dark red or dark blue color? I know how the formatting works, but I'm not sure what keywords to use for dark red and dark blue. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 20:19, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
:Dark red I've had problems with so I use brown; for dark blue try boldening.
Red

Brown

'''Dark blue'''

Not sure if this helps, but it's the best I can do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 20:47, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

:Thanks for the suggestion RobSmith, and here's the thing. So I created [[United States Senate election in Maine, 2020|this page]], and I was initially thinking of using dark red and dark blue for the font colors in the wikitable for [[Susan Collins]] and [[Sara Gideon]] respectively, thinking that it would contrast with the generic red/blue colors for internal links, but after closely observing the colors after your reply, it turns out that the regular red and blue colors differ from the generic colors for wikified text. However, there is also another problem. For the situation where I'm trying to change the font color, it seems that apparently font color can't be changed in a wikitable, or something else. I used a wikitable as I couldn't figure out a way to put one image directly to the left of another, and it seems that this issue with font color formatting arises.. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 21:43, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
::So are you trying to contrast GOP for red and Dem for blue? Maybe a miniicon like this or somesuch formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]] 22:02, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
:::Great suggestion RobSmith; I just tried it and I think it works quite well! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

:::If it helps, you can also use a hex color code, like <code><nowiki>style="color:#000000"</nowiki></code> to indicate black. With a little trial and error (or a [https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp hex color picking tool]) you could probably get it pretty close. If you want to match a specific color, you can get that code too. You could take a screenshot of that color, open it in a photo editor which tells you color codes (like gimp), and get the exact code you need. Or, if you use Firefox, open the menu, and select "Web Developer", then "Eyedropper" and move the pointer the color you want the code for. Using the default style, red links seem to be about "#c60000" and blue links seem to be about "#3366bb". I didn't test those though, so slight tweaks may be needed to get it exactly right. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (EDT)
::::That's a great idea DavidB4, but the problem is that I can't figure out a way to code that into the source properly. I tried using <code><nowiki></nowiki></code>, but it didn't seem to work. I think it probably has to do with the way the wikitable functions, but I'm not entirely sure. Since I used what RobSmith suggested, the party affiliations are distinguished, so I suppose the font colors don't really need to be changed, though I do very much appreciate your suggestion! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:34, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

::::I am curious though, is there a way such that if two images are aligned to the right, that one image is directly to the left of the other? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:37, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::For plain text, you can just use "<nowiki>Colored text</nowiki>". Wouldn't that work? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem. Anyway, I'm glad Rob's suggestion is working! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

== McSally Derangement Syndrome ==

Just wondering, is it about time for [[Conservapedia]] to coin the term "McSally Derangement Syndrome" and make a page about it? After all, the [[liberal]] hatred for [[Martha McSally]] has been getting worse and worse, given the [[snowflake]]s erupting all over the internet, the [[establishment]] media being somewhat biased towards the senator, and even idiotic websites having been created as smears, all for the purpose of trying to oust McSally this election year. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 12:39, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

:I tend to shy away from inventing terms, but I'm not firmly opposed to it, if this seems like a useful topic to others. I suspect that most snowflakes doesn't even know who McSally is, but they do know who Trump is. This seems to better justify having an article on the latter than the former. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:32, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

::About [[TDS]], it seems that [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] already created the page a few years ago. And about McSally, while some [[snowflake]]s may not have heard of her, those who do tend to despise her and constantly tout her likely 2020 [[Democrat]] opponent [[Mark Kelly]]. For example, after the "liberal hack" rebuke against Manu Raju, there was a massive left-wing meltdown that McSally would *dare insult a CNN reporter*. Many have also used McSally's vote against [[Obamacare]] to ridiculously argue that she is somehow opposed to protection for [[pre-existing condition]]s, despite the fact that the Republican-led repeal efforts ''does'' provide a certain degree of protection for such. Also, on ''[[The Hill]]'', I always notice in the articles about the senator that the comment sections are filled to the brim with idiotic liberal remarks, such as touting [[Mark Kelly]]'s little-known military record while blatantly ignoring McSally's Air Force record as a combat fighter for two decades (I noticed the idiocy when citing ''The Hill'' as a biased [[establishment]] media outlet [[United_States_Senate_elections,_2020#Establishment_media.2FDemocrat_collusion|here]]). And that's not to mention the "opinion" articles on AZ Central attacking the senator. As well as the threat by a Tuscon man in 2018, etc. Overall, given this as a major election year, liberals are pouring a massive effort to unseat McSally, and their nonsensical rhetoric getting out of hand. Thus, I suppose whether the page should be made or not could be up for consideration at the moment, as it's possible other editors may have certain disagreements. And I do appreciate your input, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 01:08, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

== ICO file to highlight Conservapedia tab on browser ==

Most websites have a little jpg pic for the tab, like wikipedia or wordpress have a blue letter W.
This helps people keep track of sites when they have multiple tabs open.
It is done with a tiny image file with an .ico extension.
It would need to be inserted somewhere in the site settings.
(Without an ico or icon file, the tab presents on the browser as a plain blank rectangle.)

== Information Box ==

I've been working on a page for a World War I battle recently, and I want to add an information box at the top to include some of the basic facts and statistics. But I don't know for sure if I need to create a new template for that, or if there's an existing one I can apply: some exist for other wars like the Revolutionary War, but I can't tell if they will carry over to World War I or another conflict. Any ideas? -[[Teakin88]]

:I'm using the WWII battle Template on [[2020 Leftist insurrection]]. You could just cut n paste that one. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:39, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thanks Rob! That was very useful. -[[Teakin88]]

== Is it OK for me to copy stuff I wrote on Wikipedia to here? ==

I am primarily a Wikipedia editor. (Feel free to check me out, my username is the same there.) I don't really prefer reading here because I think this site is very opinionated and derogatory to many people, and I do not agree with all the views of this site, even though I am a Christian. However, I don't really mind copying my contributions to this and other wikis. Is it OK (for non-politically related subjects)? Thanks! [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:If it's your own work in your own words, then I believe it's fine. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 21:43, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thanks! Which sources can I cite here that are considered "reliable"? [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 21:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::I don't believe there to be a very detailed guide on that. Just go with sources that you can instinctually trust and don't seem sketchy. For example, Wikipedia should ''not'' be cited unless it's to prove the latter's [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia|liberal bias]]. Most conservative sites like [[Breitbart]], [[Townhall.com]], and the [[Daily Caller]] are great. Just keep in mind that the main reason for citing references is to back up whatever points you're trying to make on the articles you're editing on. If you cite anything that contains inappropriate language/content in any context, then it's important that you specify in the reference whatever that needs to warned for readers. Hope this helps. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 22:07, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

== Access Issues ==

Has anyone else been encountering serious problems accessing Conservapedia the last few days? It seems like half the time I get on here, I'm met with an error message: "Internal Server Error," "Gateway Timeout," "Unauthorized," etc. It isn't all the time, but it's often enough to be frustrating, and if I'm not the only one, it needs to be sorted out. -[[Teakin88]]
:The [[DNC]] and their allied [[CCP]] hackers don't like the message getting out, so they are attempting to suppress information. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:06, 10 August 2020 (EDT)
::My recent edits have disappeared--again. Does anyone know what is going on??? -[[Teakin88]]
:::I have no idea what's happening either. Also, I had just mentioned about the issue [[Talk:Main_Page#Server_errors|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 11:04, 19 August 2020 (EDT)
::::Continuing to figure things out now. We have and will restore some of the edits. Sorry for the unexpected disruption!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (EDT)

== Request to change article on homosexuality ==

Hey, nice work guys, I really love the articles. One thing I have noticed though is the lack of articles like "arguments FOR homosexuality." Now, I'm just as God-fearing as the rest of you, and I refuse to buy into the Homosexual Agenda as well, but if we want this place to maintain its non-partisanship, we should address both sides and deal with the Left's arguments accordingly. I was thinking about changing the existing debate articles by also including arguments for both sides. I have seen these leftists bring up some terrible points lately and I have just wanted to address them with this wonderful community - LeftistSchools
:You have to be an expert to talk about certain things discreetly. After all, the Bible says about some: "What they do is too shameful to discuss." Is that how you spell God-fearing? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::I'd suggest a Debate page rather than a mainspace article at this point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:43, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::My bad, I missed that typo when I was writing this up. It has been fixed. I believe you referenced Ephesians 5:12? Just before that verse, does it not also say that we should "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them?" I agree with RobSmith in that a debate page should be set up. Active discussion must be involved if we are to expose the deeds of darkness - [[User:LeftistSchools]]

::::Verse 12 actually reads, ''For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::The Holy Apostle says to expose "the futile works of darkness" ''by contrast'' through seeking "complete goodness and right living and truth." It is also written, "cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them." The argument is over. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 20:16, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Ham and eggs==

If you say you have ham and eggs, you must have at least ''some'' ham or ''some'' eggs. If you switch steak for ham and switch oatmeal for eggs, how can you still say you have "ham and eggs"? That shouldn't be difficult to understand. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 10:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

== Night mode ==

Just wondering, is it just me, or is night mode not around anymore? Usually for a certain time period when night mode's on, account creation is disabled for everyone (except administrators), and editing is limited to those with the "Administrator" or "edit" tag. This usually prevents trolls from vandalizing when most editors aren't as active on CP. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier's mother be all well!]]''''' Wednesday, 13:56, 9 September 2020 (EDT)

== More server issues ==

Is it just me, or does it occur for anyone else editing that CP would function normally for around nine minutes, then won't load for the next six minutes, with the process repeating? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 23:47, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
:I typically can make 2 or 3 edits, purge the history for the past hour, and can re-edit. I'm rotating between 4 browsers to do it. It's been happening for about 3 days. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 00:07, 24 September 2020 (EDT)
::Ah, I see. I'll try purging my browser cache and see if it helps to at least partially resolve the nuisance. Thanks for the reply! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 00:15, 24 September 2020 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I'm new to Conservapedia, and I was wondering if there is a category for articles that need improvements? Such as spell-checking, adding wikilinks to dead-end articles, etc. Things that are easy to help me get familiar with the process of editing here. Thanks. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
:If you look at the left side on any CP page and under "Edit Console", there's a link that says "Special pages". That lists some maintenance reports, including dead-end pages, etc. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Saturday, 19:36, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
(ec)
:No, but that's a good idea. Here's a suggestion: you could look at [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:PopularPages Popular Pages], and begin with the newer ones that seemingly are receiving the most traffic right now. Thanks! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:38, 24 October 2020 (EDT)
::Thank you for the suggestions! [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2020-10-24T23:27:14Z

MAGAViking: /* Hello */ new section

User:MAGAViking

2020-10-24T22:35:21Z

MAGAViking: Created page with "In God we trust."

In God we trust.