Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2019-12-08T07:46:55Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#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><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=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 terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com"/>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>https://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
# Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
# Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
# Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
# Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
# Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
# Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
# Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref name="aina.org">http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref name="aina.org"/> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
# A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
# 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—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
# For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
# Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created an article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that an editor who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The editor in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>
# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on that<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>
# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia editors censored several examples of left-wing violence, including [[Antifa]]'s attack on [[Andy Ngo]] and a violent anti-ICE attack in Tacoma.<ref>Adler, T.D. (July 18, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/ Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 18, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia's treatment of the [[Ukrainian collusion]] adhered to Democrat talking points.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/30/wikipedia-transcribes-democrats-spin-in-article-on-trump-ukraine-call/ Wikipedia Transcribes Democrats’ Spin in Article on Trump-Ukraine Call]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 30, 2019.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2019-12-08T07:36:42Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#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><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=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 terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com"/>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>https://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref name="aina.org">http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref name="aina.org"/> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created an article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The user in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>
# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on [[BuzzFeed]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>
# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia editors censored several examples of left-wing violence, including [[Antifa]]'s attack on [[Andy Ngo]] and a violent anti-ICE attack in Tacoma.<ref>Adler, T.D. (July 18, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/ Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 18, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia's treatment of the [[Ukrainian collusion]] adhered to Democrat talking points.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/30/wikipedia-transcribes-democrats-spin-in-article-on-trump-ukraine-call/ Wikipedia Transcribes Democrats’ Spin in Article on Trump-Ukraine Call]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 30, 2019.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-20T16:37:52Z

SamSamson: @abcqwe Sorry I'm not him but I think his story is worth to include nevertheless.....

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. As such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-20T13:31:43Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. As such this can be construed as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-20T13:29:56Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Furthermore, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. As such this could be construed by some as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-19T16:37:16Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to be larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James has spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Besides that, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. This could be construed by some as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-19T16:33:20Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to be larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James has spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Besides that, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under trivial circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. This could be construed by some as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-19T16:26:06Z

SamSamson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to be larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James has spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Besides that, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written about his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, on Reddit. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. This could be construed by some as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-05-19T16:20:58Z

SamSamson: Deletionist issues on Wikipedia

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#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—considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created a Wikipedia article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several Wikipedia policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to be larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse the "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to exclude any other viewpoints they don't like nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even liberals like transgender journalist Andrea James has spoken out against this hubris on February 2017 <ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref>. Besides that, it is worth to note that a user who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written about his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion, on Reddit. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story. This could be construed by some as a textbook example of the so called "[[Streisand effect]]".<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-28T00:27:27Z

SamSamson: Replacing page with 'DISREGARD THAT THIS SITE SUCKS BALLS!'

DISREGARD THAT THIS SITE SUCKS BALLS!

Dover

2008-10-12T20:25:33Z

SamSamson:

'''Dover''' is the name of a number of towns and cities.

In the [[United States]] it is the capital city of [[Delaware]].

In [[England]], it is an [[English Channel]] port in the county of [[Kent]], notable for it white chalk cliffs - one of Britain's most well-known natural landmarks - and its proximity to [[France]].

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]
[[Category:Delaware]]

Homosexuality and Hepatitis

2008-10-12T20:21:37Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|left|Hepatitis C Virus]]
In respect to [[homosexuality]] and [[hepatitis]], according to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both [[Hepatitis A]] and [[Hepatitis B]] disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) due to lack of adequate protection and irresponsibilty.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref> According to the CDC, "About 10% of all new HAV [Hepatitis A Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM. Although the overall incidence of hepatitis A has declined in the [[United States]] over the past decade, frequent outbreaks continue to be reported among MSM." <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref> The CDC also reports that "About 15%-20% of all new HBV [Hepatitis B Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitis C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute [[hepatitis C]] among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. [[British]] researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, [[United Kingdom]], since 2000. The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

Hepatitis is one of the illnesses of [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]

Homosexuality and Hepatitis

2008-10-12T20:21:10Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|left|Hepatitis C Virus]]
In respect to [[homosexuality]] and [[hepatitis]], according to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both [[Hepatitis A]] and [[Hepatitis B]] disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) due to lack of adequate protection.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref> According to the CDC, "About 10% of all new HAV [Hepatitis A Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM. Although the overall incidence of hepatitis A has declined in the [[United States]] over the past decade, frequent outbreaks continue to be reported among MSM." <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref> The CDC also reports that "About 15%-20% of all new HBV [Hepatitis B Virus] infections in the United States are among MSM."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitis C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute [[hepatitis C]] among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. [[British]] researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, [[United Kingdom]], since 2000. The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

Hepatitis is one of the illnesses of [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]

Talk:Liberal labels

2008-10-12T20:19:47Z

SamSamson:

Essay namespace? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:30, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== A bit rich... ==

On a website which seems increasingly to pride itself on liberal use of the word "liberal" as a catch-all slur to disparage and discredit any views opposing evangelical christianity/creationism/conservatism, it seems just a wee bit rich to include an article suggesting that ''Liberals use words like "conservative" as epithets to disparage and discredit any views opposing Liberalism''. Pot, meet kettle! Or is this another parody article? It is becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference, and I fear for the wellbeing of this "trustworthy" encycclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:Not to mention the fact that like it or not (probably not!), liberalism ''has'' become a mainstream political current... [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]]

Talk:Liberal labels

2008-10-12T20:19:30Z

SamSamson:

Talk:Liberal labels

2008-10-12T20:19:07Z

SamSamson:

Teenage homosexuality

2008-10-12T20:11:46Z

SamSamson:

'''Teen homosexuality''' is a burning issue, given that how a person develops and behaves early in life can have profound effects in later life. For example, given the relevant information about teen [[homosexuality]] in respect to the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes of homosexuality]], it is important that teens and parents be aware of relevant and accurate information, due to a lot of misinformation or information based on ignorance or mere speculation being offered in the public square. Also, given the existence of [[Ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]], if a teen has already engaged in homosexuality or is a homosexual, there is certainly hope in regards to [[Overcoming homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] since the best evidence indicates that [[Homosexuality and choice|engaging in homosexuality is ultimately a matter of choice and so is leaving the homosexual lifestyle]]. In addition, teens and parents should be aware of the [[Homosexuality and Health|negative health effects of homosexual activity]] in regards to teen homosexuality. For example, in 2006, the noted pediatric journal ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' published a position paper entitled ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''. <ref name="adhealth">[http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_HIV_Infection_and_AIDS_in_Adolescents-update.pdf Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91]</ref> The stated : "Among adolescents and young adults with HIV or AIDS, most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men."<ref name="adhealth" /> In addition, the ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' stated the following:
{{cquote|As of December 31, 2003, almost 38,500 cases of AIDS had been reported in adolescents and young adults 13–24 years old in the United States of America. Previous studies demonstrating that the risk of AIDS increased with the age at infection suggest that a large proportion of people developing AIDS in their third decade of life became infected with HIV as teens.<ref name="adhealth" />}}

In regards to this public health care fiasco that certainly had an effect in regards to teen homosexuality, [[Adolescent AIDS and Medical Community Negligence|there was a considerable amount of medical community negligence]]. In 2007, a journal article abstract for an article in ''The American Psychologist'' stated that "gay and bisexual male adolescents and young adults in the [[United States]] have been disproportionately impacted by the HIV pandemic" and that gay and bisexual adolescents and young adults in the United States have had "steadily increasing rise in their [[HIV]] infection rates".<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18020756?ordinalpos=34&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Sex isn't that simple: culture and context in HIV prevention interventions for gay and bisexual male adolescents, The American Psychologist, 2007 Nov;62(8):803-19]</ref>
==Teen Homosexuality and Older Homosexuals Preying on Vulnerable Youth==
The pro-homosexual publication ''The Advocate'', in 1992 made the following admission in regards to homosexuality and HIV infection in American youth:
{{cquote|Gay boys and straight girls who are having sex for money, shelter, love - they are at risk. And our community, the gay and lesbian community - and I particularly fault gay men here - has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having unprotected sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.<ref>''America's Worst Kept Secret - AIDS is devastating the Nation's Teenager and Gay Kids are Dying by the Thousands'', Victoria A. BrownsWorth, ''The Advocate'', March 24, 1992, page 41.</ref>}}
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|225px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]]
In 1991, the medical researcher Kruks reported the following in the ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' regarding homosexuality and HIV infection among youth:
{{cquote|Gay male street youth, as well as non-lesbian female street youths, seem to be particularly vulnerable for emotional as well as sexual exploitation...

These relationships are often extremely damaging for a number of reasons. The "sugar daddy" usually presents himself to the youth in a loving caretaker role. For a street youth who has a past history of rejection and/or abuse, the promise of being loved and cared for is a compelling one. However, these relationships in many ways have similar dynamics to incest.

Many gay youths coming to YSD [Youth Services Dept. of Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Service Center] for services have long histories of being involved in a succession of "sugar daddy" relationships. Each of these is a cycle of falling in love, believing that life will now be wonderful forever and that this older adult truly loves the young person, discovering that in fact it is just sex that the adult wants, feeling the impact of one more betrayal, and ending up on the streets again. The whole cycle last an average of 1-2 months, and the youth often becomes extremely [[suicide|suicidal]] at the end of each cycle.<ref>http://fathersforlife.org/dale/heartbea.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1772888&dopt=AbstractPlus Kruks, G. (1991) Gay and lesbian homeless/street youth: Special issues and concerns. Journal of Adolescent Health. 12: page 518]</ref>}}

In 1995, the medical journal'' Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine'' stated:
{{cquote|Another group at high risk for HIV infection is young men reporting sex with other men....Many young gay men tested in homeless youth centers reported exchanging money or drugs for sex, which may place them at high risk for HIV infection. Young men who are homeless or runaways who barter for sex with same-sex partners may not consider themselves gay and thus may beyond the reach of prevention messages targeting the gay community.<ref>[http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/5/521 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Volume 149, May 1995, page 527]</ref>}}

==Time Magazine Report on Teen Homosexuality and Liberal Media Bias==
John Cloud is a homosexual activist who writes for [[Time magazine]] and wrote the October 10, 1995 cover story for Time Magazine which was entitled “The Battle Over Gay Teens.”<ref name="tradvals">http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2460</ref> In regards to teen homosexuality, the article was an example of the typical [[Liberal Bias|liberal media bias]] in regards to the [[Homosexuality in the Media|media coverage of the homosexuality issue]]. Specifically, John Cloud’s article rendered a positive portrayal homosexual teens who are establishing networks of Gay Straight Alliance clubs on campuses all over the United States.<ref name="tradvals" /> According to the Traditional Values Coalition, most readers of Time magazine were unaware of was that John Cloud is a homosexual who had previously written for the [[liberal]] Washington City Paper in Washington, DC. about his visit to a "homosexual sex orgy club in Washington, DC."<ref name="tradvals" />

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality in Schools]]
*[[Greek Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.probe.org/faith-and-sexuality/homosexuality/helping-teens-understand-homosexuality.html Helping teens understand homosexuality] by [[Probe Ministries]]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693645?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed Sexual risk behaviors of Gay, Lesbian, and bisexual youths in New York City: prevalence and correlates, ''AIDS Education and Prevention'', 1999 Dec;11(6):476-96.]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence

2008-10-12T20:07:20Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".]]
In regards to '''homosexual couples and domestic violence''', studies indicate that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homosexual as a whole homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.] In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding [[Homosexuality and Murders|the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].

Regarding studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>[http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf 2004 General Social Survey], Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> According the [[American College of Pediatricians]] who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.<ref name="acpeds">http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref> In addition, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."<ref name="acpeds" />

In June of 2004, the journal ''[[Nursing Clinics of North America]]'' reported the following regarding homosexual couples:
{{cquote|Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community...

Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are [[HIV]]-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humiliation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref>}}

In 2000, the [[New York Times]] in an article entitled ''Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships'' cites some information which may indicate that domestic abuse may be under-reported in the homosexual community.<ref name="nytimes">[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E6DC1239F935A35752C1A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/D/Domestic%20Violence New York Times, Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships by By JOHN LELAND, November 6, 2000]</ref> The New York Times article states the following:
{{cquote|But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently...

For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston.

Mr. Shannon said: ''People feel, 'Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.' ''<ref name="nytimes" />}}

The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded that "married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.' Even if we include all married and separated husbands, the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater."
<ref>[http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured], Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001</ref> Another study indicated that 83% of homosexuals report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. <ref name="jfv">[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref>

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states that "11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner".<ref>[http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_domestic_violence.html#Anchor-Fischbach-17304 National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet]</ref> A study published in The ''Journal of Family Violence'' reported among its participants that "Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" of its participants.<ref name="jfv" />

A [[study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women]] is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual Marriage]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Domestic Violence]]

Homosexual Agenda

2008-10-12T20:04:08Z

SamSamson: the agenda is too shallow and simplistic to be called a belief IMO.

The '''homosexual agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of mottos and objectives. The ideology and goals, as explained further below, include restricting free speech, obtaining special treatment, distorting science, and interfering with freedom of association.

It is an agenda that [[gay rights]] activists set in the late 1980s, in a book called ''After the Ball,'' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref>''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted at http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

[[Focus on the Family]] quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1</ref>}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== The Goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#censoring biblical condemnations of homosexuality and evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html</ref> <ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html</ref>
#establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950</ref>
#expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html</ref>
#ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); ''Able v. United States'', 155 F.3d 628(2d Cir. 1998) (military)</ref>
#promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref>
#*in places like Massachusetts and California — where the gay lobby is the strongest — it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys — "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual." Or — "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>
#promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2</ref>
#force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination <ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/jun/01/060106132.html</ref>
#getting more rights in prison
#*Gay and Lesbian Prisoners in California Allowed Conjugal Visits <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277137,00.html</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref>
*New Hampshire law makes same-sex civil unions legal <ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

: Soliciting donations
: Encouraging email activism
: Producing and disseminating gay reform information
: Influencing local media in what stories they produce
: Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp</ref>

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

== References ==

<references/>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press

==See also==
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*"[[Homophobia]]"
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Homosexuality laws

2008-10-12T20:02:07Z

SamSamson: you don't want to use French words, do you?

The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse. For example, while the [[Netherlands]] recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty for homosexual acts, although other penalties may be used instead of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>

==In the United States==
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
In [[Homosexuality and American Law]], treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>

The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>

==In the European Union==
[[Image:European Union.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|Laws in EU member states vary, but in general are less anti-gay than in most countries.]]
Laws protecting the rights of homosexuals in the [[European Union]] are more extensive than in the United States. All 27 member states have decriminalised homosexual acts, and have laws against anti-gay discrimination: seven ban some types of discrimination, four ban most types, and sixteen ban all discrimination based on sexuality. Twenty-four members (all except [[Cyprus]], [[Greece]] and [[Latvia]]) allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]] recognise [[same-sex marriage]] ([[Sweden]] will in 2009), ten recognise [[Civil union|same-sex unions]], and two recognise [[Domestic partnership|cohabitation]]. The issue is under consideration in [[Greece]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Italy]] and [[Romania]]; Cyprus does not recognise any form of union, and [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Poland]] have a constitutional ban.

Same-sex couples can legally adopt any child in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the [[United Kingdom]], and can adopt the children of one of the partners in [[Germany]] and [[Denmark]]. In Ireland, both partners can foster children, but only one can adopt, and in [[France]], a single homosexual person can adopt. The other eighteen member states do not allow same-sex couples to adopt any child. Forty-four percent of EU citizens agreed that same-sex marriages should be legal across the EU; more than half agreed in Belgium, the [[Czech Republic]], Denmark, Germany, [[Luxembourg]], the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden; and less than 15% agreed in [[Bulgaria]], Cyprus, Greece, Latvia and Romania.<ref>[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14203 Eight EU Countries Back Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Malice

2008-10-12T20:01:10Z

SamSamson: Removing all content from page

Talk:Malice

2008-10-12T20:00:33Z

SamSamson: New page: That's way too short a definition!

That's way too short a definition!

An Inconvenient Truth

2008-10-12T19:59:40Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Al Gore has created a way to [[profit]] from an alleged [[global catastrophe]].<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref><ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663 The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade],
by Deborah Corey Barnes, ''Human Events'', 10/03/2007.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a [[global warming]] slideshow, a "[[schlockumentary]]" made into a prize-winning film narrated by former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]].
It provides a one-sided account of the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], giving all the arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down continuously over the course of many thousands of years. (see [[climate cycles]]).

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' (except for the last example<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html</ref>) 
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|Gore claims that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming.
|The British High Court in making a determination if Al Gore's 'documentary' should be shown in secondary schools found that the only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
|----
|}

==35 Errors Discovered==
[[Image:Inconvenient Truth watch.jpg|right|150px]]
Global warming critic Christopher Monckton released a report called ''35 Inconvenient Truths'', which described 35 gross errors and exaggerations found within Gore's film. Some of the errors are directly contradicted by the IPCC.<ref>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html</ref>

==Gore's contributions to global warming==
:''"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of [[disinformation]] lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."''
Sean Hannity reported on Fox News Channel's ''Hannity & Colmes'', February 18, 2007, that when Al Gore was running his campaign: ''"On January 27th, 2000, Gore campaign in Concord and Manchester, New Hampshire, and on that very same day reimbursed the Thomas Lee Company $1,400 for the use of their corporate jet. That evening he left New Hampshire and flew back to Washington aboard Air Force Two, the vice president's official plane is a 757, which means that the flight from New Hampshire to Washington, well, the vice president emitted more than 22,000 pounds of CO2."'' <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/10951</ref>

== Awards ==
Despite its many scientific inaccuracies, the film has received several awards:


*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006


==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Environmentalism]]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Global Warming]]
[[Category:schlockumentary]]

An Inconvenient Truth

2008-10-12T19:59:22Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Al Gore has created a way to [[profit]] from an alleged [[global catastrophe]].<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref><ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663 The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade],
by Deborah Corey Barnes, ''Human Events'', 10/03/2007.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a [[global warming]] slideshow, a [[schlockumentary]] made into a prize-winning film narrated by former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]].
It provides a one-sided account of the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], giving all the arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down continuously over the course of many thousands of years. (see [[climate cycles]]).

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' (except for the last example<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html</ref>) 
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|Gore claims that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming.
|The British High Court in making a determination if Al Gore's 'documentary' should be shown in secondary schools found that the only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
|----
|}

==35 Errors Discovered==
[[Image:Inconvenient Truth watch.jpg|right|150px]]
Global warming critic Christopher Monckton released a report called ''35 Inconvenient Truths'', which described 35 gross errors and exaggerations found within Gore's film. Some of the errors are directly contradicted by the IPCC.<ref>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html</ref>

==Gore's contributions to global warming==
:''"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of [[disinformation]] lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."''
Sean Hannity reported on Fox News Channel's ''Hannity & Colmes'', February 18, 2007, that when Al Gore was running his campaign: ''"On January 27th, 2000, Gore campaign in Concord and Manchester, New Hampshire, and on that very same day reimbursed the Thomas Lee Company $1,400 for the use of their corporate jet. That evening he left New Hampshire and flew back to Washington aboard Air Force Two, the vice president's official plane is a 757, which means that the flight from New Hampshire to Washington, well, the vice president emitted more than 22,000 pounds of CO2."'' <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/10951</ref>

== Awards ==
Despite its many scientific inaccuracies, the film has received several awards:


*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006


==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Environmentalism]]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Global Warming]]
[[Category:schlockumentary]]

Capital punishment

2008-10-12T19:56:22Z

SamSamson: /* Methods in the United States */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons or governments (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use formalized capital punishment, though many developed countries give law enforcement greater authority to kill than allowed by the [[United States]]. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref name="EU">EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000.

Based on 2004 figures, China is the world leader in total number of executions with an estimated 3,400. Following China is Iran with 159 and Vietnam with an estimated 64 executions. The United States executed the 5th greatest number of people in the world with a total of 52. <ref>''The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2008 Edition'' 2007, p. 99. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1846680908</ref>

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government and the military.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

===Morality===

It has sometimes been questioned why 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable (see above), when 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as [[Christian]] <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm</ref>. This has led to the suggestion by some that this is [[hypocrisy]], and that [[Christian]] Americans should not advocate the death penalty, as to do so is against the code of the Bible, and immoral <ref>http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/3524</ref>.

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished, in 1981.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

===European Union===
The death penalty has been abolished in all 27 [[European Union]] member states, and 47 out of the 50 countries in [[Europe]] (only [[Belarus]] and [[Kazakhstan]] still practise it, and [[Russia]] has had an effective moratorium since 1996).<ref>http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2007/en/ACT500012007en.html Document - List of abolitionist and retentionist countries (1 January 2007)</ref> The EU has long been against capital punishment, and campaigns for its abolition worldwide. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, bans execution in all member states, and abolition is a condition of acceding to the EU.<ref name="EU" /> EU law also bans detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)
# Rebellious Sons ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

Acts states "And surely if a man shall kill another, he shall be put to the death".

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Liberal denial

2008-10-12T19:39:25Z

SamSamson: (this point should be emphasized!)

'''Liberal denial''' is the tendency of [[liberals]] to conceal, deny or censor the truth for ideological reasons. A list of the top ten ''common'' instances of [[liberal denial]] are the following:

# [[liberals]] deny they are [[liberal]], and that most of the media are [[liberal]]
# [[Hollywood values]], [[professor values]] and general [[liberal]] values have consequences for those who believe in them, and also for innocent victims
# [[liberals]] have censored [[prayer]] in [[public school]]<ref>A [[public school]] student who once "tape recorded a teacher making religious remarks to his students" to complain about it then later objected to a textbook explaining how prayer is censored from [[public school]] schools by court decisions. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4614012]</ref>
# a woman significantly reduces her risk of breast cancer by having children rather than [[abortions]]
# about half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and those STDs cause infertility<ref>"Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing -- 40 percent had an STD."[http://www.tulsaworld.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_C12_hUShe15125]</ref>
# the strident promoters of [[evolution]] generally have weaker credentials than advocates of [[intelligent design]]<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]]</ref>
# college faculties at nearly every school are completely dominated by [[liberals]], and have virtually no [[conservatives]]
# [[homosexuality]] shortens lifespan for a wide variety of reasons
# reducing the number of guns, which are primarily defensive weapons, results in an increase in crime
# [[Liberals]] deny that the war in [[Iraq]] was needed and also deny that the surge has worked

More generally, liberals also deny:

# That [[Obama]] is running the dirtiest campaign since Johnson
# more than 80% of child molesters are pornography addicts
# people like [[young mass murderers]] who take [[atheistic]] beliefs to their logical conclusions are not "crazy" or "insane", but are true believers
# the intellectual justification for [[Hitler]]'s attempt to build a master Aryan race was the [[theory of evolution]]
# [[feminists]] censor discussion about differences between men and women, and boys and girls
# [[Socialized_medicine|state run health care]] has lead to Islamic terrorism in Britain, and would do so in the US. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ ''FOX News analyzes the new terror in state healthcare.''</ref>
# obesity is a bigger problem than hunger in the Western world
# that a school having virtually no [[conservative]] teachers and many [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] is a [[liberal]] school
# that [[liberals]] attempt to intimidate and ostracize [[conservatives]], particularly in school environments and some occupations.<ref>See [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
# that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
# that girls and women in sports have debilitating ACL knee injuries at 3-4 times the rate of men,<ref>''Compare'' [http://www.universityhealthmatters.com/article.php?artid=50] (with an explanation of why there is a big difference) ''with'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/health/18knee.html?ex=1204088400&en=3a5abfaa6104ac63&ei=5070&emc=eta1 New York Times] (downplaying the difference and pretending that no one knows why). The New York Times denies overwhelming evidence, including the following:
:"Female athletes, particularly basketball players, are far more likely than their male counterparts to suffer ACL [Anterior Cruciate Ligament] injuries." Stephen Hargis, "Girls have more torn ACLs," Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), D1 (Feb. 4, 2005). According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the risk of women tearing their ACL is 1 in 100. This number drops significantly to only 1 in 500 for men. See Nikki Usher, "Knee injury takes toll on girls playing soccer five times more likely than males to suffer a torn ACL," Philadelphia Inquirer, A01 (Nov. 29, 2004). "Compared with guys, female athletes run an eight-times-greater risk of tearing the ACL, a fibrous band that connects the shinbone (tibia) to the thighbone (femur). Basketball, soccer and other sports that require cutting moves or jump shots can put athletes at risk." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls face higher knee injury risk," USA Today, 15B (Aug. 24, 2004). Timothy Hewett, PhD, the lead researcher on a definitive study at the Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center at the University of Cincinnati, says this is "close to a billion-dollar problem in girls and women in the USA. ... Even after girls have recovered from the acute injury, the changes in the joint may set the stage for osteoarthritis of the knee ...." ''Id.'' That obvious suspicion was quickly confirmed: a study subsequently published in Arthritis & Rheumatism demonstrated that "more than half of ... 103 soccer players, who were ages 14 to 28 at the time of the ACL injury, suffered osteoarthritis of the knee at the time of the study -- about 12 years later." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls' knee injuries have later consequences," USA Today, 9D (Oct. 7, 2004). "Many of the women, who were about 31 by that time, also said they had pain or some other disability that made it hard to conduct daily activities." ''Id.''</ref> and are vulnerable to other injuries<ref>"Amber Scull ruptured her spleen after she was tackled during a practice drill at Nature Coast Tech in Brooksville 2 1/2 months ago. Had she [not] arrived at the hospital 30 minutes later, doctors told her mother, she might have died." [http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/06/news_pf/Sports/Girls_face_dangers_on.shtml]</ref>
# that [[young mass murderers]] fit the profile of [[public school]]-trained [[atheism]]
# that the numerous premature deaths of [[Hollywood]] stars are the result of [[Hollywood values]]<ref>Liberal [[Wikipedia]] lists numerous [[actor]]s who died of drug overdoses, but will not acknowledge the role played by [[Hollywood values]], for which Wikipedia does not even have an entry. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths]</ref>
# that [[homeschoolers]] often do better than those who attend [[public school]]
# that [[culture]] affects [[politics]], and people's views and lifestyles
# that successful [[democracy]], both historically and logically, is the result of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity]]<ref>[http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/cultural_apologetics/snyder-democracy1.html Calvinism and the Success of Liberal Democracy, by John Snyder]</ref>
# that [[Lawrence Summers]] was fired as President of [[Harvard]] for making a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] suggestion about women and [[math]] aptitude
# that [[Ronald Reagan]]'s public exhortation, "[[Mikhail Gorbachev|Mr. Gorbachev]], tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old [[Berlin Wall]] later be torn down
# that [[gun control]] increases [[crime]]
# that reducing [[taxes]] stimulates the [[economy]]
# that choosing [[abortion]] over childbirth increases the risk of [[breast cancer]]
# that the [[mainstream media]] is [[bias]]ed
# that privately-run [[transport]] is more efficient than government-run transport
# that [[Universal Health Care|public health care]] is inferior medical care
# that [[Labor union|union]]s interfere with [[employment]] opportunities
# that [[liberal]] leaders engage in shocking wrongdoing, [[Liberal hypocrisy|hypocrisy]], and abuse of power<ref>See, e.g., leading [[liberal]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] and how fellow [[liberals]] downplayed or were silent about his misconduct.</ref>
# that ideas do matter, and can cause great harm, including liberal falsehoods
# that [[Islam]]ic extremism is a threat to the [[Western civilization]]<ref>Leftist [[Sam Harris]] admitted and complained about this liberal denial [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/REPOSITORY/610090301/1028/OPINION02 here].</ref>
# that banning [[same-sex marriage]] is analogous to banning [[polygamy]]
# that aggressive interrogation is often the only way to obtain answers from [[terrorists]]
# how the [[liberal]] ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters
# that free trade strengthens global democracies
# that a child in a mother's womb has rights established by the [[Constitution]]
# that a [[vote]] for (yea) or a vote against (nea) is an absolute position
# that you can be held accountable for the statements uttered
# that climate forecasts 50 years from now are as inaccurate as 15 days from now
# that politicians that proclaim 'Change' actually do not break with policies of the past
# that removing [[Saddam Hussein]] from power was a good thing.
# that eating [[meat]] and [[dairy]] is important for physical and mental health.
# that [[marijuana]] use has no lasting psychological effects.
# that illegal immigrants contribute to crime and poverty in the towns and cities they occupy.
# that English will cease being the language of the United States in 20 years unless it is protected as the [[official language]] (and that this would be a loss if it happened).
# that President Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina.
# that President Clinton was responsible for Rwanda inaction.
# that the Democratic party discriminates against African-Americans.
# that restricting free speech by the [[Fairness Doctrine]] is actually not fair nor democratic.
# that we can drill oil our way out of high gas prices.
# that we can't replace our dependence on oil with green technologies, when in fact we need both oil and green technologies to solve our energy crisis.
# that opposing same-sex [[marriage]] is justified and point to decriminalized interracial marriage bans as proof.
# that they are [[intolerant]] of opposing viewpoints and then try to stifle further discussion.
# that [[socialism]] and liberalism have the same political agenda.
# that [[God]] should have a place in government
# that modern drilling methods result in minimal environmental impact, even if they were implemented in uninhabited lands such as the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]]
# that companies like [[Exxon]] should pay billions of dollars in damages to the general public, ''in addition'' to the money they spend to clean up industrial accidents and to recompense those directly affected
# that [[selective logging]] keeps forests healthier by reducing the risk of wildfire
# that high food prices are not caused by [[ethanol]] production, but rather by the million acres of crop- and pastureland that have been taken out of production in the interest of wildlife conservation.
# that the life of a human is more important than the life of an animal or plant.
# that modern technology can make [[coal]] clean
# that a fence is the most effective and ultimately, the most peaceful way to protect our large border from illegal immigrants trying to get in
# that socially dangerous people exhibit a well-documented pattern of reading habits
# that [[heavy metal]] music is generally anti-Christian and promotes themes such as drugs, sex and [[Satan]] worship.

Often [[liberal]]s refuse to admit that they are [[liberal]]s, in the hope of appearing more reasonable. [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to admit in a presidential debate in 2007 that she is a [[liberal]]. Similarly, [[Michael Dukakis]] refused for a while to admit that he was a [[liberal]] during the 1988 presidential campaign. Only out of desperation did Dukakis admit that he was a [[liberal]], and even then he admitted only that was a liberal like President [[Harry Truman]], who served 40 years earlier.

Liberals like to bash President Bush as a war monger and cite [[President Clinton]] for his eight years of peace and prosperity. Liberals will deny record low unemployment, more people owning their homes and President Bush going after [[terrorists]] while protecting Americans from further attacks. Liberals will selectively forget that during Clinton's term: the [[Rwanda]] massacre occured, the bombing of the USS Cole, the war in the [[Balkans]], the two US embassies bombed in [[Africa]], the Kobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the [[Somalia]] conflict, the missile strike against [[Afghanistan]] and the bombing campaign against Iraq. Also, [[liberals]] will deny that Clinton's economic policy ignored a series of high profile companies that eventually collapsed due to fraud: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and Qwest.

== References ==

<references/>

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberals]]

Liberal denial

2008-10-12T19:38:19Z

SamSamson: (the "denial mode" thing sounds too informal)

'''Liberal denial''' is the tendency of [[liberals]] to conceal, deny or censor the truth for ideological reasons. A list of the top ten ''common'' instances of [[liberal denial]] are the following:

# [[liberals]] deny they are [[liberal]], and that most of the media are [[liberal]]
# [[Hollywood values]], [[professor values]] and general [[liberal]] values have consequences for those who believe in them, and also for innocent victims
# [[liberals]] have censored [[prayer]] in [[public school]]<ref>A [[public school]] student who once "tape recorded a teacher making religious remarks to his students" to complain about it then later objected to a textbook explaining how prayer is censored from [[public school]] schools by court decisions. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4614012]</ref>
# a woman significantly reduces her risk of breast cancer by having children rather than [[abortions]]
# about half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and those STDs cause infertility<ref>"Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing -- 40 percent had an STD."[http://www.tulsaworld.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_C12_hUShe15125]</ref>
# the strident promoters of [[evolution]] generally have weaker credentials than advocates of [[intelligent design]]<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]]</ref>
# college faculties at nearly every school are completely dominated by [[liberals]], and have virtually no [[conservatives]]
# [[homosexuality]] shortens lifespan for a variety of reasons
# reducing the number of guns, which are primarily defensive weapons, results in an increase in crime
# [[Liberals]] deny that the war in [[Iraq]] was needed and also deny that the surge has worked

More generally, liberals also deny:

# That [[Obama]] is running the dirtiest campaign since Johnson
# more than 80% of child molesters are pornography addicts
# people like [[young mass murderers]] who take [[atheistic]] beliefs to their logical conclusions are not "crazy" or "insane", but are true believers
# the intellectual justification for [[Hitler]]'s attempt to build a master Aryan race was the [[theory of evolution]]
# [[feminists]] censor discussion about differences between men and women, and boys and girls
# [[Socialized_medicine|state run health care]] has lead to Islamic terrorism in Britain, and would do so in the US. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ ''FOX News analyzes the new terror in state healthcare.''</ref>
# obesity is a bigger problem than hunger in the Western world
# that a school having virtually no [[conservative]] teachers and many [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] is a [[liberal]] school
# that [[liberals]] attempt to intimidate and ostracize [[conservatives]], particularly in school environments and some occupations.<ref>See [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
# that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
# that girls and women in sports have debilitating ACL knee injuries at 3-4 times the rate of men,<ref>''Compare'' [http://www.universityhealthmatters.com/article.php?artid=50] (with an explanation of why there is a big difference) ''with'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/health/18knee.html?ex=1204088400&en=3a5abfaa6104ac63&ei=5070&emc=eta1 New York Times] (downplaying the difference and pretending that no one knows why). The New York Times denies overwhelming evidence, including the following:
:"Female athletes, particularly basketball players, are far more likely than their male counterparts to suffer ACL [Anterior Cruciate Ligament] injuries." Stephen Hargis, "Girls have more torn ACLs," Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), D1 (Feb. 4, 2005). According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the risk of women tearing their ACL is 1 in 100. This number drops significantly to only 1 in 500 for men. See Nikki Usher, "Knee injury takes toll on girls playing soccer five times more likely than males to suffer a torn ACL," Philadelphia Inquirer, A01 (Nov. 29, 2004). "Compared with guys, female athletes run an eight-times-greater risk of tearing the ACL, a fibrous band that connects the shinbone (tibia) to the thighbone (femur). Basketball, soccer and other sports that require cutting moves or jump shots can put athletes at risk." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls face higher knee injury risk," USA Today, 15B (Aug. 24, 2004). Timothy Hewett, PhD, the lead researcher on a definitive study at the Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center at the University of Cincinnati, says this is "close to a billion-dollar problem in girls and women in the USA. ... Even after girls have recovered from the acute injury, the changes in the joint may set the stage for osteoarthritis of the knee ...." ''Id.'' That obvious suspicion was quickly confirmed: a study subsequently published in Arthritis & Rheumatism demonstrated that "more than half of ... 103 soccer players, who were ages 14 to 28 at the time of the ACL injury, suffered osteoarthritis of the knee at the time of the study -- about 12 years later." Kathleen Fackelmann, "Girls' knee injuries have later consequences," USA Today, 9D (Oct. 7, 2004). "Many of the women, who were about 31 by that time, also said they had pain or some other disability that made it hard to conduct daily activities." ''Id.''</ref> and are vulnerable to other injuries<ref>"Amber Scull ruptured her spleen after she was tackled during a practice drill at Nature Coast Tech in Brooksville 2 1/2 months ago. Had she [not] arrived at the hospital 30 minutes later, doctors told her mother, she might have died." [http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/06/news_pf/Sports/Girls_face_dangers_on.shtml]</ref>
# that [[young mass murderers]] fit the profile of [[public school]]-trained [[atheism]]
# that the numerous premature deaths of [[Hollywood]] stars are the result of [[Hollywood values]]<ref>Liberal [[Wikipedia]] lists numerous [[actor]]s who died of drug overdoses, but will not acknowledge the role played by [[Hollywood values]], for which Wikipedia does not even have an entry. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths]</ref>
# that [[homeschoolers]] often do better than those who attend [[public school]]
# that [[culture]] affects [[politics]], and people's views and lifestyles
# that successful [[democracy]], both historically and logically, is the result of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity]]<ref>[http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/cultural_apologetics/snyder-democracy1.html Calvinism and the Success of Liberal Democracy, by John Snyder]</ref>
# that [[Lawrence Summers]] was fired as President of [[Harvard]] for making a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] suggestion about women and [[math]] aptitude
# that [[Ronald Reagan]]'s public exhortation, "[[Mikhail Gorbachev|Mr. Gorbachev]], tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old [[Berlin Wall]] later be torn down
# that [[gun control]] increases [[crime]]
# that reducing [[taxes]] stimulates the [[economy]]
# that choosing [[abortion]] over childbirth increases the risk of [[breast cancer]]
# that the [[mainstream media]] is [[bias]]ed
# that privately-run [[transport]] is more efficient than government-run transport
# that [[Universal Health Care|public health care]] is inferior medical care
# that [[Labor union|union]]s interfere with [[employment]] opportunities
# that [[liberal]] leaders engage in shocking wrongdoing, [[Liberal hypocrisy|hypocrisy]], and abuse of power<ref>See, e.g., leading [[liberal]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] and how fellow [[liberals]] downplayed or were silent about his misconduct.</ref>
# that ideas do matter, and can cause great harm, including liberal falsehoods
# that [[Islam]]ic extremism is a threat to the [[Western civilization]]<ref>Leftist [[Sam Harris]] admitted and complained about this liberal denial [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/REPOSITORY/610090301/1028/OPINION02 here].</ref>
# that banning [[same-sex marriage]] is analogous to banning [[polygamy]]
# that aggressive interrogation is often the only way to obtain answers from [[terrorists]]
# how the [[liberal]] ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters
# that free trade strengthens global democracies
# that a child in a mother's womb has rights established by the [[Constitution]]
# that a [[vote]] for (yea) or a vote against (nea) is an absolute position
# that you can be held accountable for the statements uttered
# that climate forecasts 50 years from now are as inaccurate as 15 days from now
# that politicians that proclaim 'Change' actually do not break with policies of the past
# that removing [[Saddam Hussein]] from power was a good thing.
# that eating [[meat]] and [[dairy]] is important for physical and mental health.
# that [[marijuana]] use has no lasting psychological effects.
# that illegal immigrants contribute to crime and poverty in the towns and cities they occupy.
# that English will cease being the language of the United States in 20 years unless it is protected as the [[official language]] (and that this would be a loss if it happened).
# that President Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina.
# that President Clinton was responsible for Rwanda inaction.
# that the Democratic party discriminates against African-Americans.
# that restricting free speech by the [[Fairness Doctrine]] is actually not fair nor democratic.
# that we can drill oil our way out of high gas prices.
# that we can't replace our dependence on oil with green technologies, when in fact we need both oil and green technologies to solve our energy crisis.
# that opposing same-sex [[marriage]] is justified and point to decriminalized interracial marriage bans as proof.
# that they are [[intolerant]] of opposing viewpoints and then try to stifle further discussion.
# that [[socialism]] and liberalism have the same political agenda.
# that [[God]] should have a place in government
# that modern drilling methods result in minimal environmental impact, even if they were implemented in uninhabited lands such as the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]]
# that companies like [[Exxon]] should pay billions of dollars in damages to the general public, ''in addition'' to the money they spend to clean up industrial accidents and to recompense those directly affected
# that [[selective logging]] keeps forests healthier by reducing the risk of wildfire
# that high food prices are not caused by [[ethanol]] production, but rather by the million acres of crop- and pastureland that have been taken out of production in the interest of wildlife conservation.
# that the life of a human is more important than the life of an animal or plant.
# that modern technology can make [[coal]] clean
# that a fence is the most effective and ultimately, the most peaceful way to protect our large border from illegal immigrants trying to get in
# that socially dangerous people exhibit a well-documented pattern of reading habits
# that [[heavy metal]] music is generally anti-Christian and promotes themes such as drugs, sex and [[Satan]] worship.

Often [[liberal]]s refuse to admit that they are [[liberal]]s, in the hope of appearing more reasonable. [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to admit in a presidential debate in 2007 that she is a [[liberal]]. Similarly, [[Michael Dukakis]] refused for a while to admit that he was a [[liberal]] during the 1988 presidential campaign. Only out of desperation did Dukakis admit that he was a [[liberal]], and even then he admitted only that was a liberal like President [[Harry Truman]], who served 40 years earlier.

Liberals like to bash President Bush as a war monger and cite [[President Clinton]] for his eight years of peace and prosperity. Liberals will deny record low unemployment, more people owning their homes and President Bush going after [[terrorists]] while protecting Americans from further attacks. Liberals will selectively forget that during Clinton's term: the [[Rwanda]] massacre occured, the bombing of the USS Cole, the war in the [[Balkans]], the two US embassies bombed in [[Africa]], the Kobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the [[Somalia]] conflict, the missile strike against [[Afghanistan]] and the bombing campaign against Iraq. Also, [[liberals]] will deny that Clinton's economic policy ignored a series of high profile companies that eventually collapsed due to fraud: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and Qwest.

== References ==

<references/>

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberals]]

Treason

2008-10-12T19:36:14Z

SamSamson:

'''Treason''' is the act of betraying one's country. Someone who commits an act of treason is known as a '''traitor''', and he has further committed the sin of [[treachery]]. The definition of traitorous "betrayal" is a thorny problem for any free society. Politics in a [[representative democracy]] have been understood in modern times to require a [[loyal opposition]], which means that the concept cannot be too expansive or debate and the life of the mind generally will be chilled. By contrast, a [[totalitarian]] state can simply designate all opposition to the philosophy of the ruling party or the policies of the leader as treason. However, in any state, in order for the [[executive branch]] to be able to fulfill its duty to protect the polity, it must retain the possibility of pursuing criminal sanctions against domestic enemies of the existing order, at least to the extent they use [[violence]].

In the [[United States]] treason is a [[federal crime]], the only crime provided for in the United States [[Constitution]]. It is defined as levying [[war]] against the United States, adhering to their enemies, or giving their enemies [[aid and comfort]].(U.S. Const. art. 3, section 3, cl. 1). Where treason is made a crime under [[state]] statutes, the definitions often emphasize action directed against [[state government]]. ( Cal. Penal Code section 37---treason consists of levying war against the state, adhering to its enemies, or giving ememies aid and comfort)

It is generally understood that treason is a crime that threatens all citizens and calls for the harshest penalties, typically [[capital punishment]]. In medieval [[England|English]] law, 'high treason' was defined as the murder or attempted murder of the reigning monarchy, or attempts to usurp or overthrow them or pervert the natural succession of the throne. 'Petty treason' was the murder of a social superior, such as a servant killing his master or a knight murdering the lord he was expected to serve, but this term gradually fell out of use after the decline of the feudal system, and because such cases could also be tried simply as murder. Before the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 (which ejected the [[House of Stuart]] and made the English government truly limited), high treason carried a penalty of [[beheading]] for the nobility and [[hanging]], [[drawing and quartering]] for others, a process vividly depicted towards the end of the 1995 film [[Braveheart]]. A famous example of such an execution was that in 1605 of [[Guy Fawkes]], a member of a failed conspiracy of [[Roman Catholics]] who sought to assassinate the [[Protestant]] King [[James I]] and his parliament. The British hanged traitors as late as the mid-[[20th century]].

The [[U. S. Constitution]] defines treason as "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It also (copying an earlier English statute, the Statute of [[Edward III]]) requires that no conviction shall be had for this crime in the absence of the sworn testimony of two witnesses. The high point of treason prosecutions came under the administration of [[Woodrow Wilson]], when the [[Espionage Act of 1917]] and [[Sedition Act of 1918]] were used to convict scores of Americans for treason based upon speeches against American participation in [[World War I]]. The Sedition Act was eventually repealed (although at least two sections of the Espionage Act remain in U. S. law) and the modern [[clear and present danger doctrine]] was formulated to determine when the U. S. or any state could resort to restricting [[First Amendment]] rights to free expression.

Treason prosecutions in the modern U. S. are exceedingly rare; although an [[al-Qaeda]] operative born in [[California]] was recently indicted, other U. S. citizens who have fought in [[Afghanistan]] on the [[Taliban]] side, notably [[John Walker Lindh]] and [[Yasser Esam Hamdi]], were tried on lesser charges, and Hamdi is now a free man. This is in part because there were no treason prosecutions arising from the [[Cold War]]; even the Rosenbergs were tried and sentenced to death for [[espionage]], the selling of secrets, which led their lawyers to complain that they were being treated more harshly than the average American traitor in [[World War II]], only two of whom having been sentenced to death. [[Aldrich Ames]], originally charged with treason after his spying for [[Russia]] during the Cold War was revealed, averted prosecution for this charge by reaching with the government a plea agreement to lesser charges, and is now serving a life sentence.

The decision not to charge the Rosenbergs with treason may stem from the fact the Cold War remained latent, instead of being formally declared by [[Congress]]. This would mean that the definition of "enemies" is actually more problematic than that of any other word in the Constitution's treason clause, since the Rosenbergs undoubtedly adhered to the [[Soviet Union]] and gave it 'aid and comfort'. Comparably, [[Jonathan Pollard]] was also charged with espionage when he passed American secrets to [[Israel]], a state usually described as a stalwart ally of the U. S., and sentenced to life inprisonment. As with the Rosenbergs, there were loud protests; this time including calls for a Presidential [[pardon]].

[[category:government]]
[[category:liberals]]

Treason

2008-10-12T19:30:17Z

SamSamson: wrong syntax

'''Treason''' is the act of betraying one's country. Someone who commits an act of treason is known as a '''traitor''', and he has further committed the sin of [[treachery]]. The definition of traitorous "betrayal" is a thorny problem for any free society. Politics in a [[representative democracy]] have been understood in modern times to require a [[loyal opposition]], which means that the concept cannot be too expansive or debate and the life of the mind generally will be chilled. By contrast, a [[totalitarian]] state can simply designate all opposition to the philosophy of the ruling party or the policies of the leader as treason. However, in any state, in order for the [[executive branch]] to be able to fulfill its duty to protect the polity, it must retain the possibility of pursuing criminal sanctions against domestic enemies of the existing order, at least to the extent they use [[violence]].

In the [[United States]] treason is a [[federal crime]], the only crime provided for in the United States [[Constitution]]. It is there defined as levying [[war]] against the United States, adhering to their ememies, or giving their ememies [[aid and comfort]].(U.S. Const. art. 3, section 3, cl. 1). Where treason is made a crime under [[state]] statues, the definitions often emphasize action directed against [[state government]]. ( Cal. Penal Code section 37---treason consists of levying war against the state, adhering to its enemies, or giving ememies aid and comfort)

It is generally understood that treason is a unique crime threatening all citizens and calls for the harshest penalties, typically [[capital punishment]]. In medieval [[England|English]] law, 'high treason' was defined as the murder or attempted murder of the reigning monarchy, or attempts to usurp or overthrow them or pervert the natural succession of the throne. 'Petty treason' was the murder of a social superior, such as a servant killing his master or a knight murdering the lord he was expected to serve, but this term gradually fell out of use after the decline of the feudal system, and because such cases could also be tried simply as murder. Before the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 (which ejected the [[House of Stuart]] and made the English government truly limited), high treason carried a penalty of [[beheading]] for the nobility and [[hanging]], [[drawing and quartering]] for others, a process vividly depicted towards the end of the 1995 film [[Braveheart]]. A famous example of such an execution was that in 1605 of [[Guy Fawkes]], a member of a failed conspiracy of [[Roman Catholics]] who sought to assassinate the [[Protestant]] King [[James I]] and his parliament. The British executed traitors as late as the mid-[[20th century]], but by that time were content to rely merely on hanging.

The [[U. S. Constitution]] defines treason as "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It also (copying an earlier English statute, the Statute of [[Edward III]]) requires that no conviction shall be had for this crime in the absence of the sworn testimony of two witnesses. The high point of treason prosecutions came under the administration of [[Woodrow Wilson]], when the [[Espionage Act of 1917]] and [[Sedition Act of 1918]] were used to convict scores of Americans for treason based on their speech against American participation in [[World War I]]. The Sedition Act was eventually repealed (although at least two sections of the Espionage Act remain in U. S. law) and the modern [[clear and present danger doctrine]] was formulated to determine when the U. S. or any state could restrict [[First Amendment]] rights to free expression.

Treason prosecutions in the modern U. S. are exceedingly rare; although an [[al-Qaeda]] operative born in [[California]] was recently indicted, other U. S. citizens who have fought in [[Afghanistan]] on the [[Taliban]] side, notably [[John Walker Lindh]] and [[Yasser Esam Hamdi]], were tried on lesser charges, and Hamdi is now a free man. This is in part because there were no treason prosecutions arising from the [[Cold War]]; even the Rosenbergs were tried and sentenced to death for [[espionage]], the selling of secrets, which led their lawyers to complain that they were being treated more harshly than the average American traitor in [[World War II]], only two of whom had been sentenced to death. [[Aldrich Ames]], originally charged with treason after his spying for [[Russia]] during the Cold War was revealed, averted prosecution for this charge by reaching with the government a plea agreement to lesser charges, and is now serving a life sentence.

The decision not to charge the Rosenbergs with treason may stem from the fact the Cold War remained cold instead of being formally declared by [[Congress]]. This would mean that the definition of "enemies" is actually more problematic than that of any other word in the Constitution's treason clause, since the Rosenbergs quite obviously adhered to the [[Soviet Union]] and give it aid and comfort. Comparably, [[Jonathan Pollard]] was also charged with espionage when he passed American secrets to [[Israel]], a state not usually be described as an enemy of the U. S., and sentenced to life in prison. As with the Rosenbergs, there were loud protests; unlike them they included calls for a Presidential [[pardon]].

[[category:government]]
[[category:liberals]]

Homosexuality and Religious Liberty

2008-10-12T19:27:23Z

SamSamson: missing hyphen

There have been a notable number of incidents involving the issue of '''homosexuality and religious liberty''' in regards to dissent and the objectionableness of [[homosexuality]].

===Harry Hammond===
[[Image:Hammond.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Harry Hammond]]]]
In October of 2001, a 69 year-old street preacher named [[Harry Hammond]] from Bournemouth, [[England]] was subjected to assault by a angry crowd of 40 people while he proclaimed his Christian views in the town center which included a call to repentance in respect to homosexuality.<ref name="hammond">http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Mr. Hammond suffered from a type of autism making speaking with others difficult for him.<ref name="hammond" /> Mr. Hammond was holding a sign bearing the words, "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord".<ref name="hammond" />

Two police officers arrived at the scene, there was a disagreement as to whether they should protect him or arrest him and eventually Mr Hammond was arrested but no violent members of the crowd were arrested.<ref name="hammond" /> At the time there were complaints from homosexuals about the sign which called for repentance in regards to homosexuality.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200205/ai_n9117665</ref>

Subsequently, Harry Hammond was charged and prosecuted and fined under the Public Order Act 1986.<ref name="hammond" /> Sadly, Mr Hammond later died and despite a posthumous court appeal stating that Mr. Hammond should have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express his beliefs, it was ruled that Harry Hammond had acted unreasonably in holding up a sign he knew to be offensive.<ref name="hammond" /> A further appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights]] was also dismissed.<ref name="hammond" />

===Eleven Christians Arrested at a Homosexual Event===
In 2004, eleven Christians, who have been dubbed the "[[Philly 11]]", were arrested at a [[Philadelphia]] event promoting homosexual-rights and some of the charges were felonies.<ref name="wndphilly">http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929</ref> Among those who were arrested were Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 who were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.<ref name="wndken">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
The Christians were preaching from the Bible regarding homosexuality and a group of homosexual activists confronted the Christians and attempted to drown out their message with whistles. <ref name="wndphilly" /> According to the Christians they were obeying all laws and respected lawful request by the police offers at the time.<ref name="wndphilly" /> In 2005, after national publicity led to widespread criticism of the arrests (especially the heavy penalties being threatened) a judge dismissed all criminal charges.<ref name="wndphilly2">http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref> In 2006, a United States federal judge ruled the group of homosexuals could not dismiss a lawsuit against the homosexual activist group Philly Pride Presents which was brought against them by the Christian protestors.<ref name="wndphilly2" />

===Other Incidents Involving Homosexuality and the Repression of Religious Liberty===
[[Image:Wicked.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]]'s book ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' recounts how his church and home were terrorized by homosexual activists in [[San Francisco]]. Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]] church and home were firebombed and he received harassing calls from homosexual activists.]]
*Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]]'s book ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' recounts how his church and home were terrorized by homosexual activists in [[San Francisco]]. Dr. Chuck McIlhenny's [[Chuck McIlhenny|church and home were firebombed and he received harassing calls from homosexual activists]].

*The [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot|Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] was an egregious case of homosexual activists terrorizing a San Francisco church. Louis Sheldon was a guest speaker when the [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] occurred. [[Christianity Today]] reported the following regarding the Hamilton Square Baptist riot incident: "Although [[Louis Sheldon|Sheldon]] has had his home painted with graffiti and his office littered with manure by radical homosexuals, this is the first time he was targeted at a church. According to Peter LaBarbera, editor of the Lambda Report, a California-based newsletter that monitors the homosexual movement, the incident represents a trend toward increased militancy among homosexual activists."

*In [[Canada]] and [[France]] legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality.<ref name="diss">http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54260</ref>

*In Canada a printer was fined several years ago for refusing a pro-homosexual printing contract that he said violated his traditional Christian beliefs.<ref name="web">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56826</ref>

*According to [[WorldNetDaily]]: "A website featuring comments by, for and about "principled conservatism" is being investigated by the Canadian government, and could be fined or ordered shut down for some postings about [[Islam]] and homosexuality....The Human Rights Commission is appointed to investigate complaints that "hate speech" or other illegal activity has been detected, and issue rulings or recommendations to the national Human Rights Tribunal, which has yet to find any defendant innocent in such a case."<ref name="web" />

*A Swedish hate crimes law was used to convict Pastor [[Ake Green]], who preached that homosexuality is a sin, to one month's prison.<ref name="diss" />

*WorldNetDaily reported the following regarding the famous St. Patrick's involving homosexual and [[abortion]] activists:
{{cquote|One infamous incident was the assault on New York’s famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While [[Cardinal John O'Connor]] presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of [[Jesus]].<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887</ref>}}

*[[Time Magazine]] reported the following incident regarding the [[Roman Catholic Church and Homosexual Activists|Roman Catholic Church and homosexual activists]]: "In San Francisco gay activists smeared handprints in paint and hung posters depicting sex acts in the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption and the archdiocese chancery."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959419,00.html''In A Rage over AIDS''], Time Magazine (online), Monday, Dec. 25, 1989 By ED MAGNUSON</ref>

*A British couple were told they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian religious faith might 'prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their custody.<ref name="diss" />

*In March of 2000 in New York City, a pastor was compelled to remove a billboard display from a city street because it violated the city’s pro-homosexual anti-discrimination law. The billboard simply quoted Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination.”<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>

*The [[First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills]] was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent refused to list the incident as a [[hate crime]]. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality [[Bible]] verse on the churches' sign.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17075 Pastor finds FBI unresponsive to homosexual activists' threats], Bob Baysinger, ''Baptist Press'', Nov 13, 2003.</ref>

*According to WorldNetDaily: "Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts' pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state." <ref name="diss" />

*Five Christians in St. Petersburg, Florida which included two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for merely stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."<ref name="wndken" />

*In Elmira, New York police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.<ref name="wndken" />

*[[George Will]] wrote the following regarding a [[Social Work|social work]] student:
{{cquote|In 2005, Emily Brooker, a social-work student at Missouri State University, was enrolled in a class taught by a professor who advertised himself as a liberal and insisted that social work is a liberal profession. At first, a mandatory assignment for his class was to advocate homosexual foster homes and adoption, with all students required to sign an advocacy letter, on university stationery, to the state legislature.

When Brooker objected on religious grounds, the project was made optional. But shortly before the final exam she was charged with a "Level 3," the most serious, violation of professional standards. In a 2 1/2 -hour hearing -- which she was forbidden to record and which her parents were barred from attending -- the primary subject was her refusal to sign the letter. She was ordered to write a paper ("Written Response about My Awareness") explaining how she could "lessen the gap" between her ethics and those of the social-work profession. When she sued the university, it dropped the charges and made financial and other restitution.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202151.html George Will, ''Code of Coercion'', Washington Post, Sunday, October 14, 2007; Page B07]</ref>}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Religious Freedom]]
[[Category:Homosexuality and Religious Liberty]]

Colorado River

2008-10-12T18:25:35Z

SamSamson:

The '''Colorado River''' is one of the longest rivers in the [[United States]], at about
1450 mi (2330 km) long, and flows from the [[Rocky Mountains]] of northern
[[Colorado]], just west of the [[Continental Divide]], then primarily southwest through
Colorado, [[Utah]], and [[Arizona]], then flows along the border between
[[Nevada]] and [[Arizona]], and Arizona and [[California]]; and continues through
[[Mexico]], emptying into the [[Gulf of California]]. It passes through several Lakes
and dams, most notably Glen Canyon Dam and [[Hoover Dam]],<ref>http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/</ref> and also runs through the [[Grand Canyon]].<ref>http://www.nps.gov/grca/</ref>

==Old name==
The Colorado River used to be called the "Grand River",<ref>http://www.memoriallibrary.com/MAP/1872West/colorado.htm Map from 1872 showing the "Grand River" in Colorado</ref> until 1921, when it got its current name.<ref>http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20031223/OPINION/312230302</ref> Because it flowed through the [[Grand Canyon]], it also gave the name "Grand" to several other towns, including [[Grand Junction]] and [[Grand County, Colorado]].

== References==

<references/>

==External Links==

* http://www.doi.gov/issues/colorado.html
* http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/jamesmrobbcoloradoriver
* http://www.udel.edu/inst/problems/colorado/

[[Category: Rivers]]

Grand Canyon National Park

2008-10-12T18:24:43Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Grandcanyon1.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Grand Canyon]]
The '''Grand Canyon''' is a 277 mile-long canyon in [[Arizona]] famed for its spectacular views and impressive depth (up to one mile). [[Young earth creationists]] believe that it was formed about 4500 years ago by rushing water after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp</ref><ref>http://nwcreation.net/grandcanyon.html</ref>
Most [[geologists]], including the National Park Service, and [[Old earth creationists]] claim that the canyon is about six million years old, cut slowly by continual erosion from the [[Colorado River]].<ref>http://www.nps.gov/grca/</ref>

==Photographic Geology Tours==
*[http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/2007/grandcanyon/html2/grca1004.htm Colorado River Raft Tour]. Take a virtual raft trip down the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon.
*[http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/2006/grandcanyon/html/grand003.htm Phantom Ranch Tour]. Hike into the Grand Canyon to Phantom Ranch along the Kaibab and Bright Angel Trails.
*[http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/grandcanyon/html2/gc1739.htm South Rim Tour]. Tour the South Rim from the Little Colorado River Gorge to the Canyon Village area.
*[http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/3Dcanyons2/pages/fg01.htm Historic Tour]. See imagery from John Wesley Powell's Second Expedition (1871-1872).

==References==
<references/>

[[category:National Park Service]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Arizona]]

Death toll of communism

2008-10-12T18:22:50Z

SamSamson: minor details

{{uncited}}

The '''death toll within totalitarian Communist states''' such as the [[Soviet Union]], [[People's Republic of China]] and [[Cambodia]], resulting from the implementation of communist land reforms, political violence and repression, has been quite high.

== Soviet Union ==

'''Stalin (1924-1953):''' The number of Soviet citizens killed by the Stalin regime will never be known with accuracy. Believable counts indicate that between 8.5 million and 50 million people died of starvation, politically-motivated murder and in forced labor camps. The most reliable estimate today is somewhere around 20 million.

== China ==

'''Mao (1949-1975):''' About 50 million people died in China as a result of ill-planned land reforms, implementation of communist agriculture policies, repression of minorities and political violence under Mao Zedong.

: Early Political Purges and Land Reform: 2 million
: "Great Leap Forward": 31-33 million
: "Cultural Revolution": 1 million (some estimates go up to 20 million)
: Ethnic Minorities, including the occupation of Tibet: 750,000-900,000
: Forced Labor Camps: 20 million

== Cambodia ==

Fair estimates say that about 1.6 million people were killed during the short but incredibly brutal reign of Cambodian communist Pol Pot, between 1975 and 1978. Out of a beginning population of 8 million, this means that about 20% of all Cambodians died from political violence, mass executions and state-endorsed starvation during Pol Pot's rule.

==External Links==
[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century]

==See Also==
*[[The Killing Fields]]

[[category:communism]][[category:statistics]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-10-12T18:13:01Z

SamSamson:

[[Image:Gp_ppl_obama_mccain_flag-capitol.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Barack Obama and John McCain]] {{move|United States presidential election, 2008}}

The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]] is the [[Democratic Party]] nominee, with Senator [[Joe Biden]] of [[Delaware]] as his Vice Presidential running mate. Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]]is the Republican candidate. His Vice Presidential nominee is [[Alaska]] [[Governor]] [[Sarah Palin]].

Obama held a 5 to 7 point lead most of the summer, but faded steadily in August. After the selection of Palin, the first woman ever on a GOP ticket, McCain leapfrogged Obama in the national polls and held a slim 2.5 point lead in mid September. Until this point, nationwide polls all year had shown a massive defeat for GOP candidates for Congress. With the GOP running 10 points behind, the Democrats stood a good chance of gaining 5-9 Senate seats and 15-20 House seats. The surge in McCain's polls helped pull up the GOP numbers; by Sept. 12 the GOP deficit was only 3.6 points, indicating small losses.<ref>Poll results from [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ RealClearPolitics]</ref> However, more recently the margin has once again widened to about 5 points.

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the [[Vice President of the United States]] will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] and Democratic candidate [[Adlai Stevenson]]. Vice President [[Alben Barkley]] sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''[[Fox News]] Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to [[Hillary Clinton]]'s campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate [[Ron Paul]] and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Uncommitted Electorate ==

As of the beginning of October, 2008 approximately 6-8% of poll respondents are undecided.

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 10/07 - 10/09
| 3000 LV
| '''50'''
| 45
|-
|-
|[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/Hotline_100808.htm Diageo/Hotline Daily]
| 10/05 - 10/07
| 908 RV
| '''45'''
| 44
|-
|[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/BG_100808_2-way-ballot-trender.pdf GW/Battleground Tracking]
| 10/05 - 10/07
| 800 LV
| '''49'''
| 45
|-
|-
|[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/Hotline_100308.htm Hotline/FD Tracking]
| 09/30 - 10/02
| 909 RV
| '''48'''
| 42
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/110944/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leading-Points.aspx Gallup Tracking]
| 09/30 - 10/02
| 2728 RV
| '''49'''
| 42
|-
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref> Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]], seriously hurting McCain's chances of winning that state.<ref>http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx</ref> It should be noted that in the actual elections, third party candidates such as Barr and Nader generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand. Also, when possible, polling is reported without counting 'leaners'. Leaners so far have been favoring McCain.

Due to the nature of the presidential election, relying on state-by-state electoral votes as opposed to the nationwide popular vote, nationwide polls may be less predictive of the election results. An alternative approach is to take aggregate results of state-by-state polling in order to create an electoral map. Approximately one month before the election, most polling sites doing this have found the election leaning further towards Obama, much as the general polling has shown. As of October 10th, Pollster.com showed 158 electoral votes in the McCain column, compared with 320 in the Obama column.<ref>http://www.pollster.com/</ref><ref>[http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html Politico's 2008 Swing State Map]</ref><ref>[http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right]</ref>

== McCain vs. Obama ==
McCain had the early edge, wrapping up the Republican nomination before Obama was known to be the choice of the Democrats, but this was one of the few advantages he has had. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised far more money than McCain and the Democratic primary saw a surge of new voters coming out leading to a large increase in the rolls of Democrats. From the historical position of a generally equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the numbers have now tilted 41% Democrat to only 32% Republican. From the time that Obama was declared the nominee, opinion polling showed him with a modest advantage over McCain in terms of who the voters would choose to be their next President.

Obama's strategy was to tie McCain to George Bush, a very unpopular President, even though McCain was not a part of the Bush administration and often clashed with Bush during his time as senator. McCain, for his part, had to walk a fine line with accepting praise from the President to woo conservatives, while at the same time keeping enough distance so as to not alienate moderates. When possible, McCain went after Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

On paper, the nomination would seem to heavily favor the Democrats. Overall, Democrat candidates have a +10% advantage over Republicans in a 'generic' election. The current unpopular President is a Republican, and the economy is treading water. Also, based on statistical percentages of articles on each candidate, Obama was being focused on with press coverage far more than McCain. When McCain chastised Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience and that he hadn't been to Iraq or Afghanistan in years, Obama's campaign set up for him to take a trip to both countries. While this is expected in politics, the decision of every major network to send a team of reporters to follow him was unprecedented. Obama spoke to 200,000 people in Berlin in a highly covered speech. McCain spoke to 50,000 in Buffalo shortly thereafter and barely got a whisper. Obama's numbers started to rise, but a good deal of the populace was noticing the disparity as 48% of those polled felt the press was trying to help Obama win.

Obama seemed pleased to coast on his advantages, but McCain realized he needed to shake things up. He scored by pushing offshore drilling for oil during a time when oil prices were climbing almost daily. Obama rejected the idea, but the poll numbers started to show a greater percentage of Americans warming to the concept<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/61_say_congress_should_vote_on_offshore_drilling_right_now Offshore Drilling poll]</ref> and McCain's numbers started to improve. Obama announced he would accept some measure of offshore drilling, and McCain's momentum was halted and his gains retreated by a couple of points. McCain started an ad campaign that acknowledged Obama's celebrity status, but asking what it meant. A few days later at the start of August he called out Obama for 'playing the race card' when Obama made a reference to McCain and Bush trying to scare people because he (Obama) doesn't look like other Presidents on dollar bills. The Democrats fired back, but quickly let the issue drop when poll numbers showed that most voters did consider Obama's statement to be racist.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/only_22_say_mccain_ad_racist_but_over_half_53_see_obama_dollar_bill_comment_that_way</ref>. The bounce for Obama after the Berlin speech shrank back to pre-trip levels. While Obama continued to enjoy a slight lead in the polls, McCain continued to keep the race close without either candidate breaking away.

In mid-August both candidates came together at the invitation of Pastor [[Rick Warren]] where each was asked a series of the same questions dealing both with political and personal views. While not a debate, it was the first televised forum where both candidates had a chance to express themselves and their positions. Obama hoped to appeal to Christian conservatives by expressing a religious side while McCain hoped to solidify the conservative base by sharing his own conservative and religious credentials. The difference in style between the two was evident as Obama spent more time explaining and expounding on his positions while McCain was more straight-forward and received more laughs with his candid speaking style. The polling numbers continued as they had been.

There was a bounce at the start of the Democratic convention, but not what was expected as McCain suddenly drew even in the race. The friction between Hillary Clinton and Obama as well as the perceived slight of Hillary when Biden was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate hurt Obama at a time when his approval was expected to climb. McCain then made a mistake by airing an ad of Hillary Clinton that 'supported' him. Clinton was set to speak at the convention and it was no secret that there was bad blood between her and Obama and it was widely believed that her support for Obama would be lukewarm at best. Instead, apparently galvanized by McCain's hubris before her speech, she came out strongly for Obama and rallied those who supported her. Obama's pre-convention edge returned. Obama followed it up with a very strong speech the next day in a huge stadium with fireworks and a Greek temple. [[Dick Morris]], a political pundit usually giving advice to Republicans felt that Obama had done such a good job reaching out to the groups that he needed that he would pull ahead by double-digits. In order to suppress the bounce from the convention, McCain announced his Vice Presidential candidate the next day, a woman, Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]. The bounce for Obama was muted at first, but increased in the following days to surpass pre-convention levels, especially as Sarah Palin came under heavy attack in the media.

The edge continued as the Republican convention began. Losing a day to the hurricane, their shortened convention came out strong as well, emphasizing John McCain as a patriot and a maverick for change who is tested and will do what is right for the country regardless of political affiliation. It was notable for the secondary role that the sitting President played, talking only briefly and barely being mentioned after that. The convention tied McCain to [[Ronald Reagan]], a popular Republican President who was able to gain the support of a good number of conservative Democrats, an ability that McCain would badly need to emulate. While the convention had very high ratings starting with Palin's well received speech, it was unclear what the impact would be in the polls. Indeed Obama continued to lead directly afterward, but that soon changed with a turn of about 8 points and a slim lead for McCain. The Republican convention had actually more than balanced out the powerful Democratic convention.

While Obama had stated that his campaign would avoid negative advertising, as it became clear that the bounce from the convention was continuing to last and he might lose the election, his campaign turned more forcefully to negative advertising. In ads aired since the Republican convention through mid September, McCain's ads were about Obama 56% of the time, but Obama's ads were about his opponents 77% of the time.<ref>http://news.aol.com/article/campaign-ads-not-getting-much-air-time/142625</ref> Obama also received a large boost from the press which vigorously attacked McCain, but even more so Palin. Obama appeared on ''[[O'Reilly Factor|The O'Reilly Factor]]'' and was treated with civility and respect, even if not with agreement. McCain and his wife appeared on ''The View'' and were treated like last week's gutter trash. The constant negative barrage and reporting slowly moved the numbers back to even.

As the negative articles on Palin continued to intensify, some of which just quoted celebrities who had never met her calling her "whacko" or a "hater of women", her first major interview with Gibson was a turning point. Gibson asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine, but wouldn't define it for her even as she asked questions for clarifications. When she then answered with her understanding, Gibson rebuked her by implying that she misunderstood the doctrine. In truth, since the term is only a press invention, it has taken on different meanings at different times and the definition that Palin gave matched one that Gibson himself had used years earlier. Nevertheless, it was a moment and was jumped on by the press. Those who saw the interview voted heavily that they were now less likely to vote for Palin. The attack on her had muted her effectiveness, even if it was unjustified.

Stemming the tide of the McCain campaign's lead became a strong swing for Obama with a series of events that went to the Democratic nominee's favor. The polls began to tack to Obama's favor with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and a subsequent 500-point drop in the Dow Jones Index. Then, President Bush sounded a major alarm on the economy and proposed a huge 700 billion dollar rescue plan for the mortgage industry, which sent shock waves through the American populace and swept them with even more fear on the economic picture. Bush called both Presidential nominees to meet with him and Congress. It gave Obama a boost in legitimacy, his previous Achilles' heel. While he had a weak record in accomplishments and showing leadership, the chance to be propelled to a position of prominence handed it to him on a silver platter. Moreover, the plan was more problematic among Republicans than it was among Democrats, giving Obama another boost merely by supporting it while putting McCain on more shaky ground. Both candidates supported it once again blurring McCain's advantage in experience if both men were seen as interchangeable in their reaction.

McCain chose to suspend his campaign until a deal on the bailout was reached, a mistake. The Democrats could add pork to the plan and make it even more unpalatable to the Republicans, and they did. As the first debate loomed and no deal had been reached, McCain was in a quandary. He chose to attend the debate under the view that the plan was well under way to being passed. After the debate the plan was actually defeated and wouldn't be adopted, with more changes, until the following week.

McCain's debate with Obama went well and he was viewed as having done better than expected. Unfortunately for him, Obama was also viewed as doing better than expected and was seen as looking Presidential, further cementing his standing and locking in a lead in the polls that had become rather substantial. The Vice Presidential debate was the most watched in history and Palin was given high marks for her performance, but unfortunately for the Republican ticket, Biden was also on his game that night and also came across well. There were no changes in the polling numbers and the number of undecided voters began to quickly dwindle.

== State by State Breakdown ==
[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The United States had become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

It is assumed that the 2008 election will be similar where close battles in a few states could determine the outcome. Individual state polling numbers for the 2008 election so far:

* Red = McCain leading
* Blue = Obama leading

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
! Source
! Updated
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Alabama
|37%
|55%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alabama/election_2008_alabama_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|9/09/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Alaska
|33%
|64%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alaska/election_2008_alaska_presidential_election Rasmussen]
| 7/31/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Arkansas
|37%
|47%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|7/17/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Arizona
|40%
|52%
|[http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Arizona_804.pdf PPP]
|7/31/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|California
|51%
|37%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/20/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Colorado
|49%
|48%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Fox News]
|9/28/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Connecticut
|52%
|35%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|6/30/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Delaware
|50%
|41%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/delaware.html SurveyUSA]
|3/06/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Florida
|51%
|47%
|[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/battleground.polls/index.html CNN/Time]
|9/30/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Georgia
|43%
|50%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/georgia/election_2008_georgia_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/14/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Hawaii
|61%
|31%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/hawaii.html SurveyUSA]
|3/06/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Idaho
|37%
|53%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/idaho.html DailyKos.com]
|7/30/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Illinois
|53%
|38%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/illinois/election_2008_illinois_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/14/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Indiana
|42%
|46%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/indiana/election_2008_indiana_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/19/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Iowa
|55%
|40%
|[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/states.poll/index.html CNN/Time]
|9/02/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Kansas
|37%
|52%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kansas/election_2008_kansas_presidential_election Rasmuseen]
|8/11/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Kentucky
|39%
|49%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kentucky/election_2008_kentucky_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|7/29/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Louisiana
|34%
|54%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/12/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Maine
|49%
|36%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/12/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Maryland
|53%
|40%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/maryland.html SurveyUSA]
|3/06/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Massachusetts
|51%
|36%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/5/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Michigan
|51%
|41%
|[http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Michigan_1002685.pdf PPP]
|10/01/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Minnesota
|53%
|41%
|[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/states.poll/index.html CNN/Time]
|9/02/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Mississippi
|41%
|52%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mississippi/election_2008_mississippi_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|7/28/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Missouri
|49%
|48%
|[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/battleground.polls/index.html CNN/Time]
|9/30/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Montana
|42%
|53%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/montana/election_2008_montana_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|9/09/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Nebraska
|32%
|50%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/11/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Nevada
|49%
|44%
|[http://www.time.com/time/2008/poll_main.pdf CNN/Time]
|8/26/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|New Hampshire
|53%
|43%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|10/01/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|New Jersey
|48%
|40%
|[http://beta.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/election_2008_new_jersey_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/04/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|New Mexico
|49%
|44%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2008_new_mexico_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|10/01/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|New York
|52%
|32%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/13/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|North Carolina
|49%
|48%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|10/8/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|North Dakota
|41%
|55%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_dakota/election_2008_north_dakota_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|9/08/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Ohio
|50%
|42%
|[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1218 Quinnipiac]
|9/29/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Oklahoma
|38%
|52%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oklahoma.html SurveyUSA]
|6/13/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Oregon
|47%
|37%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/election_2008_oregon_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|8/7/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Pennsylvania
|54%
|39%
|[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1218 Quinnipiac]
|9/29/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Rhode Island
|55%
|31%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/rhode_island/election_2008_rhode_island_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|7/04/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|South Carolina
|39%
|48%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|6/07/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|South Dakota
|40%
|44%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_dakota/election_2008_south_dakota_presidential_election2 Rasmussen]
|7/09/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Tennessee
|36%
|51%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/tennessee/election_2008_tennessee_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|6/24/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Texas
|41%
|50%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/election_2008_texas_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|7/30/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Utah
|33%
|52%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/utah/election_2008_utah_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|6/22/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Vermont
|63%
|29%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/vermont.html SurveyUSA]
|3/06/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Virginia
|51%
|43%
|[http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_VA_1009535.pdf PPP]
|10/07/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Washington
|48%
|37%
|[http://strategicvision.biz/political/wa_poll_083008.htm Strategic Vision]
|7/27/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|West Virginia
|38%
|45%
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/election_2008_west_virginia_presidential_election Rasmussen]
|6/05/08
|- style="background:white; color:blue"
|Wisconsin
|49%
|40%
|[http://strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_100208.htm Strategic Vision]
|9/29/08
|- style="background:white; color:red"
|Wyoming
|40%
|53%
|[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wyoming.html Research2000]
|5/29/08
|}

== Analysis of States by Region ==
Because of the [[electoral college]] system in the United States, it is important to analyze the presidential election by each state. These states are grouped into regions.

=== New England ===
[[Barack Obama]] is almost certain to win almost every state in this region, which tend to be very [[liberal]]. The only exception is in New Hampshire, where [[John McCain]] is well liked and George Bush won in 2000. This state is expected to be competitive. On the other hand, with only four electoral votes, the impact on the election will not be as great as some other battleground states.

=== Mid-Atlantic ===
[[New York]], [[Delaware]], and [[Maryland]] are solidly Democrat and will vote for Obama this election. [[New Jersey]] is less so, but still has Democratic leanings, and will probably go for Obama. [[Pennsylvania]] is a very important swing state for both candidates, as it has 21 electoral votes, fifth most in the nation, and has both liberal and conservative elements. In recent years, the state has moved toward becoming Democrat. However, it is not yet at the point that is safely in the Democratic camp, and will still be focused on heavily by both candidates during this election cycle. McCain still has a very good chance because Obama was unable to connect with the working-class citizens of Pennsylvania during the Democratic primary.

=== South-Atlantic ===
[[Washington, D.C.]] is overwhelmingly liberal and will vote for Obama; however, with three electoral votes its significance is limited. Although [[Virginia]] has usually been Republican territory in Presidential elections, this year it has become a competitive state. Democrats will work on increasing the voter turnout in the northern part of the state, with a high population of D.C. transplants. McCain's strength is in the southern regions and among the military. In the Carolinas, which usually votes Republican, McCain is seen as having the edge, but Obama may be competitive in these states if he mobilizes the African-American population. [[Georgia]] is a state where a third-party candidate [[Bob Barr]] could make a difference. While most voters favor McCain, he could lose enough votes to Barr to lose the state, especially if there is a large black turnout. [[Florida]] is a very close swing state, most famously known for its role in [[United States presidential election, 2000|Election 2000]]. An important constituency in this state is the [[Jewish]] population, who are continuing to support Obama over McCain. Cuban-Americans, who are most upset with Obama's statements that he would meet with Fidel Castro, back McCain.

=== Deep South ===
John McCain will do well in the deep south. This includes the states of [[Texas]], [[Alabama]], [[Mississippi]], [[Louisiana]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[Kentucky]] and [[West Virginia]]. This area is generally [[conservative]], and consistently vote Republican in Presidential elections. Although Obama believes in a fifty-state strategy, it is unlikely that such a strategy will be helpful in getting out the vote in these states apart from the black population.

===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play.

=== West ===
Barack Obama is almost certainly guaranteed a win in the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington, while John McCain is favored in Arizona, Idaho, Utah and Texas. Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, may turn to Obama if Bob Barr manages to pull enough votes from McCain.

===Other Important Swing States===
Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.

== General Strategy ==

McCain's team wants to convince the electorate of the long-term leadership and experience that John McCain has shown in two decades of government service while emphasizing the relative untested nature of Barak Obama.

Obama's team wants to convince the electorate that Obama is the candidate of fresh ideas while downplaying his relative inexperience compared to the more seasoned McCain. When possible, McCain is lumped together with George Bush, an unpopular President.

===Republican Strategy===
With more limited funding than his Democratic rival, McCain had favored open town hall meetings to attract the greatest number of people. He is focusing his advertising on swing states. He also asked for open debates with Obama of the Lincoln-Douglas variety where candidates can talk directly to each other, but this was not accepted by the Democratic camp which prefers the current structured format.

McCain will highlight his record of leadership, his service to his country and stress that as President he can be counted on to keep America safe from outside threats. McCain's strongest supporters are the elderly - the group that most wants stability.

McCain's choice of [[Alaska]] [[Governor]] [[Sarah Palin]] as his Vice Presidential nominee was a departure from what was expected and helped to show that he would go down paths that the Republican party had not done in the past. McCain has touted Palin's record of standing up to the Alaska Republican party when she resigned from an Ethics Commission in protest over a lack of ethics of fellow commissioners, as well as when she ran against, and beat, then-incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in the Republican primary in 2006. McCain will continue to tout her as a "maverick" to complement his own maverick image that he is trying to emphasize. Last, by choosing a female running mate, McCain hoped to pick up the votes of female voters disaffected with the perceived slight of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Prior to the start of the Democratic convention, 30% of Hillary's supporters had still not backed Obama and there was a good deal of bad blood between the two.

With the unfolding of the campaign season and watching the Democratic strategy and how it was playing out in the press and polls, the McCain campaign decided not to cede the moniker of change to Obama, but rather to take it upon themselves by emphasizing that McCain has a track record of change - while Obama does not. The McCain campaign feels it needs to have the voters ask who can be trusted more to get the job done, and if that occurs, then they have the advantage.

With the selection of Palin, and the energy it has brought to the conservative base, McCain has taken to larger rallies, as opposed to town hall meetings and press conferences. By mid-September, he had gone four weeks without a town hall, and three weeks without a press conference, instead sticking to larger engagements, appearing alongside his vice presidential nominee, with larger crowds than he had experienced earlier in his campaign.

===Democratic Strategy===
Democrats are confident that the low popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which John McCain supports, puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008. They have been cautious in the Iraq arena realizing that 'The Surge' worked and they were on the wrong end of that issue. Focus is being put on a timeline for troops coming home, a position that most of the American population favors.

Democats believe it is their race to lose, but also realize they had a good chance to win the last two Presidential elections and came up short each time. General wisdom also states that a poor economy favors Obama, so they will try to point a dire picture in this area. As in past elections, differences between those who have obtained a high income level and those who have not will be emphasized.

Favored by the young, Democrats will try hard to encourage and get out the young vote, a task that has proven more difficult than expected in the last two election cycles. To their advantage, Obama made his vice presidential pick via text message to cell phone numbers registered on the site. The announcement went to 3 million cell phones, a useful database for "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts, when voters may not be home or reachable on their landline.

As an extension of the DNC's strategy in the 2006 elections, led by [[Howard Dean]], Barack Obama has been working towards a "50-state strategy." The campaign is working to place campaign offices throughout the country with a focus on voter registration. The increase in the rolls of Democratic voters from the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama played out well for the Democrats and puts pressure on Senator McCain even in typically red states, and more specifically, "Lean Republican" states, to use the Cook Political Report's term. In addition, with a fundraising advantage, Obama is airing ads in those tight states forcing McCain to make decisions about whether to use funds to match ads and campaign efforts in those states or rely on historical results that those states will support him and focus funds in traditional toss-up states instead.

==Fundraising==

Barack Obama had a significant edge over Hillary Clinton in the fundraiser department during their contest for the Democratic nomination, but both actually set records for raising money and both raised far more money than John McCain. McCain didn’t have to spend us much since he locked up the Republican nomination much earlier than Barack Obama locked up the Democratic. Both Obama and McCain said they would accept government funds which would also cap how much the candidates could raise on their own, but Obama, who could presumably raise more through his own sources, changed his mind and later declined. Much of McCain’s war chest will come from the Republican Party in general, which has more money to spend than their Democratic counterparts. McCain’s campaign raised $47 million in August, a very sizeable figure for him so far and a personal record, but not as strong as Obama’s best months. In the same time period, Obama set a record with $66 million. Obama, still having an edge in fundraising that has continued throughout his run for the Presidency, saw $10 million collected the day after Sarah Palin’s strongly received convention speech, a new one day record.<ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/after-palin-speech-obama-has-record-10-million-day/ After Palin speech, Obama has record $10 million day]</ref> The Palin announcement has been good for John McCain's fundraising as well.

==Election Politics==

As a general truth, political parties will put on their best face, but stoop to almost any level to make their candidate win. This election is no exception as the Democratic party has taken to busing in homeless people in Ohio to register them and have them vote on the same day, then bus them back. A loophole in the law permits this without checking identification, and that loophole is being exploited for political gain.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433681,00.html</ref>

==Conventions==

===Democratic National Convention===
The 2008 Democratic National Convention was held in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]], from August 25 to August 27 at Pepsi Center. There, Senator Obama and his running mate were selected to be the party nominee's. Barack Obama will accepted the party's nomination in front of a crowd of more than 75,000 in a free, open event held at INVESCO Field at Mile High, in a platform resemblant to a Greek temple. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] is the Permanent Chair of the Convention.

The convention had a rocky start as friction between supporters of Obama and the Clintons was not resolved. Instead of Obama getting a bump in the polls, his support actually declined. The Democrats also seemed to be at odds on finding a unifying strategy for how hard to attack John McCain and how to present it. As Democratic pundit James Carville said in an interview on [[CNN]], "If this party has a message, it's done a <heck> of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp</ref>

A bleak convention was turned around by the Clintons. Infighting between Obama and Hillary continued through the day of her speech, but a comprise was reached, and, beyond expectations, she gave a rousing speech for Obama - possibly as an angry response to McCain's latest ad that showed her 'supporting' him. Bill Clinton the next night also praised Obama, something that he failed to effectively do in 2000 for Al Gore when he centered on his accomplishments and gave little more than lip service to Gore with statements amounting to 'and Al Gore was there too'. The convention, possibly remembering that, gave him the topic he was to speak on instead of choosing his own. Clinton was angered, but it worked. He came through. By the time Obama spoke on the last night, the theme that was missing at first was clear, and Obama mixed a message of attacking McCain with the need for change and even outlining some expensive programs that would appeal to the target populace who has been lukewarm to him. From a political point of view, the convention did what it was supposed to.

===Convention Schedule===

'''Monday 8/25 (Theme: One Nation):'''

* Former President [[Jimmy Carter]]
* [[Speaker of the House]] [[Nancy Pelosi]], D-[[California]]
* Congressman [[Jesse Jackson, Jr.]], D-[[Illinois]]
* Mayor John Hickenlooper, D-[[Denver]]
* Senator [[Amy Klobuchar]], D-[[Minnesota]]
* Mayor Manny Diaz, D-[[Miami]]
* Illinois state leaders Alexi Giannoulis, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan
* Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU
* [[National Education Association]] (NEA) President Reg Weaver
* AFT President Randi Weingarten
* [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] President Nancy Keenan
* Senator [[Claire McCaskill]], D-Missouri
* Former State Representative Lee Hamilton, D-[[Indiana]]
* Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle
* Maya Soetoro-Ng - Barack Obama's half-sister
* Jerry Kellman - "Mentor and long-time friend of Barack Obama"

'''Tuesday 8/26 (Theme: Renewing America's Promise):'''

* Senator [[Patrick Leahy]], D-[[Vermont]]
* Governor [[Joe Manchin]], D-[[West Virginia]], Chair of the Democratic Governors’ Association
* Governor [[Chet Culver]], D-[[Iowa]]
* [[California]] State Controller John Chiang
* Change to Win’s Anna Burger
* [[AFL-CIO]] President John Sweeney
* [[Planned Parenthood of America]] President Cecile Richards.
* Pay Equity pioneer Lilly Ledbetter
* Governor [[Brian Schweitzer]], D-[[Montana]]
* Governor [[Deval Patrick]], D-[[Massachusetts]]
* Governor [[Kathleen Sebelius]], D-[[Kansas]]
* Governor [[Janet Napolitano]], D-[[Arizona]]
* Governor [[Jim Doyle]], D-[[Wisconsin]]
* Governor [[Ed Rendell]], D-[[Pennsylvania]]
* Governor [[Ted Strickland]], D-[[Ohio]]
* Governor [[David Paterson]], D-[[New York]]
* Senator [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], D-[[Pennsylvania]]
* Former Secretary of Energy and Transportation Federico Peña
* House Majority Leader [[Steny Hoyer]], D-[[Maryland]]
* House Democratic Caucus Chair [[Rahm Emanuel]], D-[[Illinois]]
* Representative [[Xavier Becerra]] (D-California), Assistant to the Speaker of the House;
* Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair [[Chris Van Hollen]]
* Representatives [[Nydia Velazquez]] (D-[[New York]])
* Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
* Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
* Mike Honda (D-CA)
* Senator and former Presidential candidate [[Hillary Clinton]] (D-NY)
* Former Governor [[Mark Warner]] (D-VA)--Keynote Speaker

'''Wednesday 8/27 (Theme: Securing America's Future): '''

* Former President [[Bill Clinton]]
* Governor [[Bill Richardson]], D-[[New Mexico]]
* Senator [[John Kerry]], D-[[Massachusetts]]
* Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], D-[[South Dakota]]
* Senator [[Jack Reed]], D-[[Rhode Island]]
* Mayor [[Richard Daley]], D-[[Chicago]]
* Senator [[Evan Bayh]], D-[[Indiana]]
* Senator [[Joe Biden]], D-[[Delaware]]
* Senator [[Jay Rockefeller]], D-[[West Virginia]]
* Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]], D-[[Nevada]]
* Senator [[Ken Salazar]], D-[[Colorado]]
* House Majority Whip [[James E. Clyburn]], D-[[South Carolina]]
* Congressman [[Robert Wexler]] (D-[[Florida]])

'''Thursday 8/28 (Theme: Change You Can Believe In):'''

* [[Colorado]] [[Governor]] [[Bill Ritter]]
* Former Vice President [[Al Gore]]
* Presidential nominee [[Barack Obama]]

===Republican National Convention===
The 2008 Republican National Convention was held in [[Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]] from September 1 ([[Labor Day]]) until September 4. The presumptive nominee was Senator McCain. The location has political significance in that [[Minnesota]] will likely be a close state during the general election, as will it's neighboring states [[Wisconsin]] and [[Iowa]].

The convention schedule had to be altered due to the upcoming landfall of [[Hurricane Gustav]]. The first day almost entirely focused on raising money for Hurricane relief. This led to a shortened three day convention instead of four and there was some shuffling of who was speaking on which day to accommodate the suddenly shortened time span. In a surprise, George W. Bush was only delivered an eight minute speech by satellite. In another surprise Sarah Palin's speech was watched by as many people as saw Obama give his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic convention, as over 40 million people tuned in.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548482/</ref> She was considered the highlight of the convention, even surpassing John McCain's speech the next day, and was noted for doing an exceptional job. Recognizing the strong asset that they have in her, the Republicans made reference to her many times on the last day of the convention. McCain, not known for being comfortable reading prepared speeches in a convention hall, delivered a solid speech. While Obama continued to enjoy a lead in the polls, it changed quickly thereafter to a slight McCain-Palin edge. The Republican convention more than cancelled out a very powerful Democratic convention.

===Convention Schedule===

'''Monday 9/1 (Theme: Service):'''

*RNC Chairman Mike Duncan

*[[First Lady]] [[Laura Bush]]

*[[Cindy McCain]]

'''Tuesday 9/2 (Theme: Reform):'''
*Former [[New York City]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]], Keynote speaker

*Governor Jon Huntsman, R-[[Utah]]

*Governor [[Linda Lingle]], R-[[Hawaii]]

*Governor [[Sarah Palin]], R-[[Alaska]]

*Former Gov. [[Mike Huckabee]], R-[[Arkansas]]

*Former Gov. and Homeland Security Secretary [[Tom Ridge]], R-[[Pennsylvania]]

*Former Lt. Governor [[Michael Steele]], R-[[Maryland]]

*Senator [[Tom Coburn]], R-[[Oklahoma]]

*Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-[[Tennessee]]

*House Minority Leader [[John Boehner]], R-[[Ohio]]

*Congressman Marsha Blackburn, R-[[Tennessee]]

*Congressman Luis Fortuño, R-[[Puerto Rico]]

*Congressman Adam Putnam, R-[[Florida]]

*State Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-[[California]]

*Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State

*Chris Collins

*Carolyn Dunn

*Phil Hayes

*Lisa Keegan

*Ruth Novodor

*Dr. Elena Rios

*Shirley Sadler

*Joe Watkins

'''Wednesday 9/3 (Theme: Prosperity):'''

*[[Cindy McCain]]

*Republican Party’s Vice Presidential Nominee

*Governor [[Bobby Jindal]], R-[[Louisiana]]

*Former Gov. [[Mitt Romney]], R-[[Massachusetts]]

*Senator [[Norm Coleman]], R-[[Minnesota]]

*Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]], R-[[Texas]]

*Congressman [[Mike Pence]], R-[[Indiana]]

*Mayor Mick Cornett, R-Oklahoma City

*State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-[[California]]

*Carly Fiorina, Victory ‘08 Chairman for the RNC, former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.

*Meg Whitman, National Co-Chair for McCain 2008 and former President and CEO of [[eBay]]

*Renee Amoore*

*Anne Beiler*

*Jessica Colon*

*Christy Swanson*

*Raul “Danny” Vargas*

'''Thursday 9/4 (Theme: Peace):'''

*[[John McCain]]

*Governor [[Charlie Crist]], R-[[Florida]]

*Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]], R-[[Minnesota]]

*Senator [[Sam Brownback]], R-[[Kansas]]

*Senator [[Lindsey Graham]], R-[[South Carolina]]

*Senator [[Mel Martinez]], R-[[Florida]]

*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], R-[[Tennessee]]

*Congressman Mary Fallin, R-[[Oklahoma ]]

*Michael Williams, Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission

*David Flau

*Christopher Fussner

*Lt. General Carol Mutter, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

*Charlie Smith

==Vice Presidential Candidates==

===Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate===
On August 23rd, Senator Barack Obama announced, via text message to 3 million cell phone numbers of his supporters, his nomination of Joseph Biden to Vice President. Biden's selection was considered to be a prudent move by Obama, filling a hole in his own foreign policy experience that McCain could exploit. With the implosion of [[John Edwards]], Biden was widely expected to be the choice. In order to help build up suspense, Biden said he was not chosen when he spoke to the press the day before, only to be shown as the Vice Presidential candidate the next day. A long-term senator and Washington insider with over two decades of service in the Senate, his earlier plagarism scandal was deemed to be less of a negative than the positive that his strong experience credentials could bring to the race.

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumb|left|100px|Joseph Biden]]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

===Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate===
[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|thumb|left|100px|thumb]]
*Governor [[Sarah Palin]] of [[Alaska]] was announced as John McCain's choice early on Friday, August 29th, the day after the Democratic convention ended. A surprise choice not even considered by the press to be on McCain's short list, her selection caught the political world off guard. It had been expected that [[Mitt Romney]] would earn the honor, but McCain had other ideas. At first denigrated by the people in the Obama campaign, Obama's own statement was one of cautious neutrality to feel out what impact her selection would have on the race.
 
 
 
 
 

In an interesting twist, the selection of the Vice Presidential candidates changed the complexion of the race. By Obama picking Biden, he helped to fill the hole that McCain had been attacking dealing with a lack of foreign policy experience. McCain's strongest point, experience, would lose some of its luster. But the selection of Biden, and the passing over of Hillary Clinton, left another opening. By aligning himself with someone who has been a Democratic stalwart, Obama's claim to change became less pronounced. McCain seized upon that to select a Vice President that no one expected, and a woman, and steal some of the Democratic thunder. Her lack of experience would further cut into the experience angle that had been in play earlier, but her own maverick streak in becoming governor combined with John McCain's maverick choice in selecting her led to a new emphasis on McCain's own maverick past. Suddenly he saw an opportunity to steal the moniker of change that Obama had been wearing, and he went for it. Such a change in position occurring from the Vice Presidential selection in rare in Presidential politics.

==Debates==
===Presidential Debates===
''Main Article: [[2008 Presidential Debates]]''

There will be three [[Presidential Debates|presidential debates]] for the 2008 election season. The first debate was held on September 26th, at the University of Mississippi. The topic for the debate was "Foreign Policy & National Security." The debate also talked in length about the economy. It was moderated by Jim Lehrer. The debate was a podium debate, broken into 9 nine-minute segments. The moderator introduced a topic, and then each candidate had 2 minutes to comment. Following their answers, there was 5 minutes of open discussion on the topic, facilitated by the moderator. The result was a statistical draw where both candidates did better than expected in the eyes of the public. The longer term impact worked out well for Obama who already had a lead going in, and benefited from solidfying that position.

The second debate was held on October 7th, at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. The moderator was Tom Brokaw, and the debate was in a town hall-style. The questions came from audience members and the Internet, as chosen by the moderator. After each question, the candidates will had two minutes each to respond, as well as a one-minute followup to the opposing candidate's response. Again the result was a statical draw as far as who was considered to be the winner. But with time running out for McCain, he needed something to make the poll numbers move, and that required a clear breakthrough.

The final debate will be held on October 15th, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The topic for the debate is "Domestic and Economic Policy" and will be moderated by Bob Schieffer. The candidates will be seated at a table, as opposed to behind a podium, and the format will follow that of the first debate. In addition, though, the candidates will be given an opportunity to present a 90-second closing argument.

===Vice Presidential Debate===
There was one vice presidential debate held on October 2nd, at Washington University in Saint Louis, MO. The debate was moderated by Gwen Ifill. Palin did much better than expected, but Biden was also in top form. No clear winner emerged and the poll numbers remained largely unchanged, a strategic win for the Democratic ticket that only had to maintain their lead to win the election.

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic candididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
[[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Historical Information==
===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain received the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===
Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="background:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Republicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="background:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all its attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="background:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved its date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of its delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] chose to ignore earlier primaries, hoping that a large win in Florida, with its strong transplanted New Yorkers contingent, would propel him to the nomination. Unfortunately, with earlier wins, John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="background:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after video clips were shown of his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], saying "God damn America!" during a sermon. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

===Guam Caucus===
On May 3rd, Guam held its Democratic caucuses. Out of more than 4,500 votes, Senator Obama won by 7 votes. The results gave Obama 2 pledged delegates and Senator Clinton 2 pledged delegates.

===Indiana and North Carolina Primary===
Both Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries on May 6th. Heading into the primary, registered African American voters reported receiving "robocalls" telling them they were not registered to vote. The calls were traced back to an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote". The organization included members close to the Clintons. The calls ended with an order from the state Attorney General. Senator Obama proceeded to win the primary with 56.1%.

Leading into the Indiana primary, the polls were very close, with neither candidate leading by more than the polls' margin-of-error. Senator Clinton was looking for a large win to follow up on the Pennsylvania primary, with much the same demographic as PA and Ohio. Senator Obama, though, surprised many in the news media and the Clinton campaign by losing by only a small margin, 50.56% - 49.44%. With the near-split of the delegates in Indiana, combined with his win in North Carolina, the media began to declare Senator Obama as the nominee, although he had not yet reached the necessary delegate count.

===West Virginia Primary===
With a strong working-class demographic, Senator Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary on May 13th. Polls leading into the primary had her up 29 points on Senator Obama. The final vote tally exceeded the polls, with Senator Clinton winning 66.99% - 25.67%.

===Oregon and Kentucky Primaries===
The Oregon primary was a mail-only primary--the only such primary in the nation. Democratic voters received ballots in the mail between May 2nd and May 6th, and had to be received by county election officials by May 20th. Polling leading up to the primary showed Senator Obama with a 10-15% lead over Senator Clinton. Obama held a rally on May 18th at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland which drew an estimated 72,000 people. It was the largest rally Obama had held, more than doubling the 35,000 that came out to see him in Pennsylvania. By the end of the vote tally, Obama had won the state primary 58.5% - 40.5%.

The Kentucky primary, held the same day, was long believed a lock for Senator Clinton. The voter demographic mirrored the West Virginia primary, with a heavy working-class population. Senator Clinton easily won the primary, 65.5% - 29.9%. The large win, though, was drowned out in the media by Senator Obama's win in Oregon, and more importantly, by the endorsement of Senator Obama by former opponent and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards.

===Puerto Rico Primary===
With Clinton behind in both pledged and superdelegates at this point in the race, every primary and delegate became even more important to forestall Obama reaching the necessary number of delegate to clinch the nomination. Clinton's strategy was to win out the primaries and work to convince superdelegates to support her nomination at the party convention as the best chance to beat McCain. Thus Puerto Rico, usually an afterthought in previous elections, rated visits by both candidates before the June 1st primary. Heading into the primary, Clinton led in two polls by 13% each time. The results beat poll expectations, with Clinton winning the primary 67.7% - 31.27%.

===Montana and South Dakota Democratic Primaries===
The last Democratic primaries were held on June 3rd. Senator Obama needed to win one of the primaries, and merely come close in the other to clinch the nomination. In Montana, Obama got the win he needed, defeating Senator Clinton 56.3%-41.25%. In South Dakota, Senator Clinton won, but with a close enough margin to give Obama the final delegates necessary. The result of the primary was 55.35% - 44.65%. Senator Obama was in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the site of the Republican Nominating Convention, to accept the party's unofficial nomination. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c Barack Obama Democratic Nomination Victory Speech]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:2008, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]

David Bowie

2008-10-12T17:05:10Z

SamSamson:

'''David Bowie''' is a allegedly [[bisexual]]<ref>Carr, Roy; Murray, Charles Shaar (1981). ''Bowie: An Illustrated Record.'' New York: Avon. p. 7. ISBN 0380779668.</ref> [[Rock and roll|Rock]] musician from the [[United Kingdom]], who achieved prominence in the 1970s. He was noted for his ability to constantly surprise with each new album - his early work owed something to the [[Progressive Rock]] movement, whilst albums such as ''Low'' acknowledged the embryonic [[Electronica]] movement as represented by [[Kraftwerk]] and [[Brian Eno]].

== References ==

{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Musicians|Bowie, David]]

Suicide

2008-10-12T17:04:16Z

SamSamson: Undo revision 534871 by SamSamson (Talk)

'''Suicide''' is the [[crime]] or [[sin]] of killing oneself; it is a sin throughout all of [[Christianity]], and a mortal sin in [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition; it is also a very grave sin within [[Islam]].

==Scope of the Problem==
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the [[United States]] in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among [[native American]]s. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide. Christians are 93% more likely to commit suicide than those of other faiths.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). ''Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative''. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==
The [[United States Army]], which has about one million soldiers, reported 99 suicides in 2006, which is less than 0.01%. About half were [[soldier]]s/officers under 25. According to Colonel [[Elspeth Ritchie]], psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General [[Gale Pollock]], the primary motivation for these suicides had nothing to do with military service, and instead were due to "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

== External links ==
* Demme, Greg, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5680 Suicide: What’s the problem?] 2nd April, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)

[[category:culture]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Suicide

2008-10-12T17:03:44Z

SamSamson:

'''Suicide''' is the [[crime]] or [[sin]] of deliberately killing oneself; it is a sin throughout all of [[Christianity]], and a mortal sin in [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition; it is also a very grave sin within [[Islam]].

==Scope of the Problem==
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the [[United States]] in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among [[native American]]s. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide. Christians are 93% more likely to commit suicide than those of other faiths.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). ''Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative''. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==
The [[United States Army]], which has about one million soldiers, reported 99 suicides in 2006, which is less than 0.01%. About half were [[soldier]]s/officers under 25. According to Colonel [[Elspeth Ritchie]], psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General [[Gale Pollock]], the primary motivation for these suicides had nothing to do with military service, and instead were due to "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

== External links ==
* Demme, Greg, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5680 Suicide: What’s the problem?] 2nd April, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)

[[category:culture]]
[[Category:Sin]]

France

2008-10-12T17:00:07Z

SamSamson: /* People */

{{Country
|map =France rel94.JPG
|name =''République Française''
|flag =Flag of France.png
|arms =Armoirie France.png
|capital =Paris
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =French
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Nicolas Sarkozy
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =François Fillon
|pm-raw =
|area =260,558 sq mi
|pop =64,102,140 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$1.871 trillion (2007)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$30,100 (2007)
|currency =euro
}}
'''France''' (Official title: ''République Française'', the ''French Republic'') is a country in Western [[Europe]]. One of the oldest countries in Europe, Franch has played a major role in world events since the 18th century.

==Geography==
*Area: 551,670 sq. km. (220,668 sq. mi.); largest west European country, about four-fifths the size of Texas.
*Cities: Capital--Paris. Major cities--Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Nice, Rennes, Lille, Bordeaux.
*Terrain: Varied.
*Climate: Temperate.
*Population : 62,150,775 (July 2008 INSEE est.) excluding overseas territories.

==People==
Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and migration. Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Traditionally, France has had a high level of [[immigration]]. More than 1 million [[Muslims]] immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from [[North Africa]], especially [[Algeria]]. About 85% of the population is [[Roman Catholic]], 8% Muslim, less than 2% [[Protestant]], and about 1% [[Jewish]]. In 2004, there were over 5 million Muslims, largely of North African descent, living in France. France is home to both the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in [[Europe]]. The major ethnic groups in France are: French 90%, Africans 6%, Germans 1% and others 3%

Education is free, beginning at age 3 (sometimes 2), and mandatory between ages 6 and 16. The [[public education]] system is highly centralized. Private education is primarily Roman Catholic. Higher education in France began with the founding of the [[University of Paris]] in 1150. It now consists of 91 public universities and 175 professional schools, including the post-graduate Grandes Ecoles. Private, college-level institutions focusing on business and management with curricula structured on the American system of credits and semesters have been growing in recent years.

The French language derives from the vernacular Latin spoken by the [[Romans]] in [[Gaul]], although it includes some Celtic and Germanic words. Historically, French has been used as the international language of diplomacy and commerce. Today it remains one of six official languages at the [[United Nations]] and has been a unifying factor in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean.

==Government==
The constitution of the Fifth Republic was approved by public referendum on September 28, 1958. It greatly strengthened the powers of the executive in relation to those of Parliament. Under this constitution, presidents have been elected directly for a 7-year term since 1958. Beginning in 2002, the presidential term of office was reduced to 5 years. The president names the prime minister, presides over the cabinet, commands the armed forces, and concludes treaties. Traditionally, presidents under the Fifth Republic have tended to leave day-to-day policy-making to the Prime Minister and government; the five-year term of office is expected to make presidents more accountable for the results of domestic policies.

The president can submit questions to a national referendum and can dissolve the National Assembly. In certain emergency situations, with the approval of parliament, the president may assume [[dictator]]ial powers and rule by decree. The main components of France's executive branch are the president, the prime minister and government, and the permanent bureaucracies of the many ministries. Led by a prime minister, who is the head of government, the cabinet is composed of a varying number of ministers, ministers-delegate, and secretaries of state. Parliament meets for one 9-[[month]] session each year. Under special circumstances the president can call an additional session.

Under the Constitution, the legislative branch has few checks on executive power; nevertheless, the National Assembly can still cause a government to fall if an absolute majority of the total Assembly membership votes to censure. The Parliament is [[bicameral]] with a National Assembly and a Senate. The National Assembly is the principal legislative body. Its deputies are directly elected to 5-year [[terms]], and all seats are voted on in each election. Senators are chosen by an electoral college and, under new rules passed in 2003 to shorten the term, serve for six years, with one-half of the Senate being renewed every three years. (As a transitional measure in 2004, 62 Senators were elected to 9-year terms, while 61 were elected to 6-year terms; subsequently, all terms will be six years.) The Senate's [[legislature|legislative]] powers are limited; the National Assembly has the last word in the event of a disagreement between the two houses. The government has a strong influence in shaping the agenda of Parliament. The government also can declare a bill to be a question of confidence, thereby linking its continued existence to the passage of the legislative text; unless a motion of censure is introduced and voted, the text is considered adopted without a vote.

A distinctive feature of the French [[judiciary|judicial]] system is that the Constitutional Council protects basic rights when they might be potentially violated by new laws and the Council of State protects basic rights when they might be violated by actions of the state. The Constitutional Council examines legislation and decides whether it conforms to the constitution. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, it considers only legislation that is referred to it by Parliament, the prime minister, or the president. Moreover, it considers legislation before it is promulgated. The Council of State has a separate function from the Constitutional Council and provides recourse to individual citizens who have claims against the administration. The Ordinary Courts--including specialized bodies such as the police court, the criminal court, the correctional tribunal, the commercial court, and the industrial court--settle disputes that arise between citizens, as well as disputes that arise between citizens and corporations. The Court of Appeals reviews cases judged by the Ordinary Courts.

Traditionally, decision-making in France has been highly centralized, with each of France's departments headed by a prefect appointed by the central government. In 1982, the national government passed legislation to decentralize authority by giving a wide range of administrative and fiscal powers to local elected officials. In March 1986, regional councils were directly elected for the first time, and the process of [[decentralization]] continues, albeit at a slow pace.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Nicolas Sarkozy
*Prime Minister--François Fillon
*Foreign Minister--Bernard Kouchner
*Ambassador to the United States--Pierre Vimont (pending accreditation)
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Jean-Marc Rochereau de la Sablière

===Political Conditions===
Since his inauguration in May 2007 as France's sixth president under the Fifth Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy focused his first months in office on improving the performance of France's economy through liberalization of labor markets, higher education and taxes. In the April 22, 2007 first round of presidential elections, Sarkozy, the leader of the center-right, union for a popular Movement (UMP) party, placed first; Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal placed second; centrist François Bayrou placed third; and extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen placed fourth out of a field of 12 candidates. Sarkozy prevailed in the May 6, 2007 second round, defeating Royal by a 53.06% to 46.94% margin. Royal's loss marked the third straight defeat for the Socialist candidate in presidential elections.

President Sarkozy assumed office on May 16, 2007, the last day of Jacques Chirac's official term. Sarkozy named François Fillon Prime Minister. Jean-Louis Borloo, the second highest ranking figure in the government, presides over an expanded Ministry of Environment.. Legislative elections held on June 10 and 17, 2007 gave the UMP a large parliamentary majority. Current key ministers include: Jean-Louis Borloo, Ecology and Sustainable Planning; Michèle Alliot-Marie, Interior; Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Affairs; Christine Lagarde, Economy; Brice Hortefeux, Immigration; Rachida Dati, Justice; and Hervé Morin, Defense.

In electing Nicolas Sarkozy, French voters endorsed the wide-ranging program of reforms--including market-oriented social and economic reforms--that were the focal point of Sarkozy's campaign, implicitly giving him the green light to try and implement these reforms quickly, and allowing a way forward for overcoming France's 2005 rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. By embracing a figure long tagged as "pro-American," French voters also expressed their desire to renew trust in the U.S.-France relationship. During the campaign Sarkozy often ended his stump speeches--evoking Martin Luther King--by calling for a "French dream" of social equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity; and his first speech as President-elect assured his "American friends" that they could rely on France's friendship.

Shortly after taking office, President Sarkozy went to work on a series of reforms to address mounting pressure for short- and long-term restructuring, including reduced government spending, flexibility in the implementation of the 35-hour work week, more labor-market flexibility, less taxation, and further privatization and liberalization of the business sector. French and EU analysts stress that longer-term measures must focus on reducing the future burden of ballooning public pension and health care budgets, as well as reducing labor-related taxes. Government action to initiate such reforms may have contributed to the center-right's poor showing in 2004 regional and European Parliamentary elections, and continues to spark periodic strikes and work stoppages throughout France.

===Foreign Relations===
A charter member of the United Nations, France holds one of the permanent seats in the Security Council and is a member of most of its specialized and related agencies. France is also America's oldest ally; French military intervention was instrumental in helping Britain's American colonies establish independence. Because many battles in which the United States was involved during World War I and World War II took place in France, more American soldiers have been killed on French soil than on that of any other foreign country.

France is a leader in Western Europe because of its size, location, and large economy, membership in European organizations, strong military posture, and energetic diplomacy. France generally has worked to strengthen the global economic and political influence of the EU and its role in common European defense. It views Franco-German cooperation and the development of a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) with other EU members, as the foundation of efforts to enhance European security.

France supports Quartet (U.S.-EU-Russia-UN) efforts to implement the Middle East roadmap, which envisions establishment of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive peace agreement, France supports the involvement of all Arab parties and Israel in a multilateral peace process.

Since 2003, France has supported four UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Iraq, including UNSCR 1546, which laid out a timetable for Iraq's political transition and reaffirmed UNSC authorization for a Multinational Force in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to stabilize the country. France contributed to the 230 million euro EU contribution to Iraq reconstruction in 2003. After the Iraqi Interim Government took power, France agreed to substantial debt relief and offered police training to Iraqi security forces. In 2006, France and the U.S. collaborated closely to create a consensus in the UN to adopt UNSCR 1696 demanding action from Iran to end its enrichment-related and preprocessing activities.

France continues to play an important role in Africa, especially in its former colonies, through aid programs, commercial activities, military agreements, and cultural impact. In those former colonies where the French presence remains important, France has supported political, military, and social stability. France maintains permanent military bases in Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Senegal, and has maintained a long-term military presence in Chad. An attack on French forces in Côte d'Ivoire in 2004 led to the departure of thousands of French nationals from that country. France responded to the crisis in Côte d'Ivoire by dispatching Operation Unicorn, which has worked with UN forces to help stabilize Côte d'Ivoire. France has also deployed forces to Togo (in support of Operation Unicorn in Côte d'Ivoire) and to the Central African Republic, where French forces have assisted government forces in deterring rebel elements. France with EU partners, participated in an international military operation (EUFOR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2006, which played an important presence during in elections that year in the D.R.C. France was instrumental in organizing the June 2007 ministerial conference on Darfur and has shown leadership in increasing international interest and involvement in Chad and the Central African Republic, both of which are affected by the crisis in Darfur.

France has extensive political and commercial relations with Asian countries, including China, Japan, and Southeast Asia as well as an increasing presence in regional fora. France is seeking to broaden its commercial presence in China and will pose a competitive challenge to U.S. business, particularly in aerospace, high-tech, and luxury markets. In Southeast Asia, France was an architect of the 1991 Paris Accords, which ended the conflict in Cambodia.

===Relations with the United States===
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|right|Le Sacre Coeur]]
Relations between the United States and France are active and cordial. Mutual visits by high-level officials are conducted frequently. Bilateral contact at the cabinet level has traditionally been active. France and the United States share common values and have parallel policies on most political, economic, and security issues. Differences are discussed frankly and have not generally been allowed to impair the pattern of close cooperation that characterizes relations between the two countries.

France is one of NATO's top three troop contributors. The French support NATO modernization efforts and are leading contributors to the NATO Response Force (NRF). France is keen to build European defense capabilities, including through the development of EU battle-group sized force packages and joint European military production initiatives. Defense Minister Morin supports development of a European defense that must complement, not compete with, NATO, which remains at the core of transatlantic security. French resistance, however, to efforts to reinforce NATO's reach beyond the North Atlantic region remain a source of contention.

France is a close partner with the U.S. in the war on terror. It cooperates with the U.S. to monitor and disrupt terrorist groups and has processed numerous U.S. requests for information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. French security and intelligence services have rounded up hundreds of extremists in the past year. The French judiciary has upheld the pre-trial detainment of the four French former Guantanamo detainees. France is a strong partner in multiple non-proliferation fora and is a key participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Through the "EU3" (France, the U.K., and Germany), France is working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein with whom they, like other countries had close economic ties, especially in the supply of nuclear technology. Widely referred to as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" in the US, Donald Rumsfeld famously quipped that "going to war without the French is like going on a duck hunt without an accordion".

Despite differences over Iraq, the U.S. and France continue to cooperate closely on many issues, most notably the global war on terrorism, efforts to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and on regional problems, including in Africa, Lebanon, and Kosovo. On Iraq, the French agreed to generous debt relief for Iraq in Paris Club negotiations and have accepted the establishment of a NATO training mission there.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France seeks robust U.S. engagement in the peace process. France is working to contain the Hamas-led challenge to the Palestinian Authority. President Sarkozy, like his predecessor, President Chirac, is committed to keeping France in supportive relations with Israel.

The U.S. and France have worked closely to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, free of Syrian domination, having fought with uncharacteristic tenacity to keep the British out in World War II, but without success.
The U.S. and France co-sponsored in September 2004 UNSCR 1559, which called for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, a free and fair electoral process, and disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. In the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the U.S. and France reiterated calls for a full, immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops and security services from Lebanon. France also co-sponsored UNSCR 1701 and was one of the leading countries in Europe working to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 by committing 2,000 troops to UNIFIL-plus. Strong French backing led to adoption of UNSCR 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to prosecute the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination and other killings of critics of Syria's interference in Lebanon. Foreign Minister Kouchner is working hard to help competing Lebanese political factions agree to a framework for governing the country in accordance with the country's constitution and free from external interference. France also participates in the U.S. Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative.

Trade and investment between the U.S. and France are strong. On average over $1 billion in commercial transactions take place between France the U.S. every day. In 2006 U.S. exports to France totaled over 24.2 billion euros and U.S. imports from France were valued at 37.1 billion euros. France is the eighth partner for total trade of goods (imports plus exports) and the tenth-ranked supplier worldwide to the U.S. and its 10th largest customer. The U.S. is France's third-ranked supplier and its fifth largest customer. There are approximately 2,300 French subsidiaries in the U.S., providing more than 481,100 jobs and generating an estimated $178 billion turnover. U.S. companies in France employ about 603,400 French citizens. The U.S. is the top destination for French investments worldwide.

==Security Issues==
French military doctrine is based on the concepts of national independence, nuclear deterrence, and military sufficiency. France is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and has worked actively with Allies to adapt NATO, internally and externally, to the post-Cold War environment. However, in 1966, the French withdrew from NATO's military bodies while remaining full participants in the alliance's political councils. In December 1995, France announced that it would increase its participation in NATO's military wing, including the Military Committee. France remains a firm supporter of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other efforts at cooperation.

Outside of NATO, France has actively and heavily participated in a variety of peacekeeping/coalition efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans, often taking the lead in these operations. France has undertaken a major restructuring to develop a professional military that will be smaller, more rapidly deployable and better tailored for operations outside of mainland France. Key elements of the restructuring include reducing personnel, bases, and headquarters and rationalizing equipment and the armament industry. French active-duty military in June 2007 numbered about 350,000 (including Gendarmes), of which nearly 34,000 were deployed outside of French territory. France completed the move to all-professional armed forces when conscription ended on December 31, 2002.

France places a high priority on arms control and non-proliferation. After conducting a final series of six nuclear tests, the French signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. France has implemented a moratorium on the production, export, and use of anti-personnel landmines and supports negotiations leading toward a universal ban. France is an active participant in the major supplier regimes designed to restrict transfer of technologies that could lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group (for chemical and biological weapons), the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. France participates actively in the Proliferation Security Initiative, and is engaged with the U.S., both bilaterally and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to curb nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) proliferation from the D.P.R.K., Iran, Libya, and elsewhere. France has joined with the U.S., Germany, and the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council to offer a package of incentives and disincentives to Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities. France has also signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. France maintains a color-coded security system, similar to that of the U.S., consisting of yellow, orange, red and scarlet threat levels.

At least 12 French soldiers have been killed in [[Afghanistan]] during [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] since its inception in 2001.<ref>Anon., [http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10651794&CFID=10819516&CFTOKEN=58cc719e037c97de-2515EEEE-B27C-BB00-012942FB89A6CFE4 Where the sniping has to stop] ''The Economist'', 7th February, 2008.</ref>

==Economy==
With a GDP of approximately $2 trillion, France is the sixth-largest economy. It has substantial agricultural resources, a large industrial base, and a highly skilled work force. A dynamic services sector accounts for an increasingly large share of economic activity and is responsible for nearly all job creation in recent years. GDP growth was 1.1% in 2003, after two years of steady decline from 3.9% in 2000. GDP growth was 1.7% in 2005, down from 2.5% in 2004 (2000 price basis).

Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. French unemployment dropped from a high of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s, and after hovering around 10% during the 2000s, unemployment slipped once again to 8.0% in July 2007. France joined 10 other European Union countries in adopting the euro as its currency in January 1999. Since then, monetary policy has been set by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. On January 1, 2002, France, along with the other countries of the euro zone, dropped its national currency in favor of euro bills and coins.

Despite significant reform and privatization over the past 15 years, the government continues to control a large share of economic activity: Government spending, at 53.5% of GDP in 2006, is among the highest in the G-7. Regulation of labor and product markets is pervasive. The government continues to own shares in corporations in a range of sectors, including banking, energy production and distribution, automobiles, transportation, and telecommunications.

Legislation passed in 1998 shortened the legal work week from 39 to 35 hours for most employees effective January 1, 2000. Recent assessments of the impact of work week reduction on growth and jobs have generally concluded that the goal of job creation was not met. The former administration introduced increasing flexibility into the law, returning the country to a de facto (if not de jure) 39-hour work week in the private sector. Under President Nicolas Sarkozy's impetus, overtime work will be exempt from income taxes on October 1, 2007, a move to encourage work and to increase work duration.

Membership in France's labor unions accounts for approximately 5% of the private sector work force and is concentrated in the manufacturing, transportation, and heavy industry sectors. Most unions are affiliated with one of the competing national federations, the largest and most powerful of which are the communist-dominated General Labor Confederation (CGT), the Workers' Force (FO), and the French Democratic Confederation of Labor (CFDT).

France has been very successful in developing dynamic telecommunications, aerospace, and weapons sectors. With virtually no domestic oil production, France has relied heavily on the development of nuclear power, which now accounts for about 80% of the country's electricity production.

===Trade===
[[Image:French-Perfume.jpg|right|280px]]
France is the second-largest trading nation in Western Europe (after Germany). France ran a $33.7 billion deficit in 2006. Total trade for 2006 amounted to $1,013.5 billion, over 45% of GDP 75.0% of which was with EU-24 countries. In 2003, U.S.-France trade in goods and services totaled $80.3 billion. U.S. industrial chemicals, aircraft and engines, electronic components, telecommunications, computer software, computers and peripherals, analytical and scientific instrumentation, medical instruments and supplies, broadcasting equipment, and programming and franchising are particularly attractive to French importers. Total French trade of goods and services was $1,001 billion in 2006.

Principal French exports to the United States are [[aircraft]] and [[engine]]s, beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, cosmetics, and luxury products. France is the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States.

===Agriculture===
France is the European Union's leading agricultural producer, accounting for about one-third of all agricultural land within the EU. Northern France is characterized by large wheat farms. Dairy products, pork, poultry, and apple production are concentrated in the western region. Beef production is located in central France, while the production of fruits, vegetables, and wine ranges from central to southern France. France is a large producer of many agricultural products and is expanding its forestry and fishery industries. The implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Uruguay Round of the GATT Agreement resulted in reforms in the agricultural sector of the economy. Continued revision of the CAP and reforms agreed under the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) will further change French agriculture. France remains Europe's strongest opponent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and often assumes an agricultural position at the EU Council to promote this policy.

France is the world's second-largest agricultural producer, after the United States. However, the destination of 70% of its exports is other EU member states. Wheat, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products are the principal exports. The United States, although the second-largest exporter to France, faces stiff competition from domestic production, other EU member states, and third countries. U.S. agricultural exports to France, totaling $464 million in 2003, consist primarily of soybeans and products, feeds and fodders, seafood, and consumer oriented products, especially snack foods and nuts. French agricultural exports to the United States are mainly cheese, processed products, and wine. They amount to about $3.327 billion (2006) annually.

==History==
[[Image:Renoir Monet pintando en su jardín de Argenteuil.jpg|right|300px|French art]]
France was one of the earliest countries in Europe to progress from feudalism to the nation-state. Its monarchs surrounded themselves with capable ministers, and French armies were among the most innovative, disciplined, and professional of their day. During the reign of [[Louis XIV]] (1643-1715), France was the dominant power in Europe. But overly ambitious projects and military campaigns of Louis and his successors led to chronic financial problems in the 18th Century. Deteriorating economic conditions and popular resentment against the complicated system of privileges granted the nobility and clerics were among the principal causes of the French Revolution (1789-94). Although the revolutionaries advocated republican and egalitarian principles of government, France reverted to forms of absolute rule or constitutional monarchy four times--the Empire of [[Napoleon]], the Restoration of Louis XVIII, the reign of Louis-Philippe, and the Second Empire of [[Napoleon III]]. After the [[Franco-Prussian War]] (1870), the Third Republic was established and lasted until the military defeat of 1940 at the hands of the Germans.

[[World War I]] (1914-18) brought great losses of troops and material. In the 1920s, France established an elaborate system of border defenses (the Maginot Line) and alliances to offset resurgent German strength. Unfortunately for France that defense was based on the trench warfare of World War I and provided a poor plan for the [[Blitzkreig]] tactics that the Germans had developed. France was defeated early in [[World War II]] when it was quickly overrun by [[Nazi Germany]] and was occupied in June 1940. In July, the country was divided into two: one section being ruled directly by the Germans, and a second controlled by the French ([[Vichy France]]) and which the Germans did not occupy. German and Italian forces occupied all of France, including the "Vichy" zone, following the Allied invasion of North Africa in November 1942. The "Vichy" government largely acquiesced to German plans, namely in the plunder of French resources and the forceful deportations of tens of thousands of French [[Jews]] living in France to [[concentration camp]]s across Europe, and was even more completely under German control following the German military occupation of November 1942. Economically, a full one-half of France's public sector revenue was appropriated by Germany. After 4 years of occupation and strife, Allied forces liberated France from Germany control in 1944.

France emerged from [[World War II]] to face a series of new problems. After a short period of provisional government initially led by Gen. [[Charles de Gaulle]], the Fourth Republic was set up by a new constitution and established as a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. French military involvement in both [[Vietnam]] and [[Algeria]] combined with the mixed nature of the coalitions and a consequent lack of agreement caused successive cabinet crises and changes of government.

Finally, on May 13, 1958, the government structure collapsed as a result of the negative public opinion pressures generated by four years of war in Algeria. A threatened coup led the Parliament to call on General de Gaulle to head the government and prevent civil war. Marking the beginning of the Fifth Republic, he became prime minister in June 1958 and was elected president in December of that year. Also resulting from the Algerian conflict, were decades of increased immigration from the Maghreb states, which functioned to change the composition of French society. The French had believed that the immigrants would assimilate into French society, but over time the opposite occurred as the groups came to think of themselves not so much by their separate African nation ancestory but instead by their Islamic background. Enclaves of 'nations within a nation' would eventually form where all signs would be in Arabic. This would cause further trouble in modern times.

Seven years later, for the first time in the 20th Century, the people of France went to the polls to elect a president by direct ballot. De Gaulle won re-election with a 55% share of the vote, defeating François Mitterrand. In April 1969, President de Gaulle's government conducted a national referendum on the creation of 21 regions with limited political powers. The government's proposals were defeated, and de Gaulle subsequently resigned. Succeeding him as president of France have been Gaullist [[Georges Pompidou]] (1969-74), Independent Republican [[Valery Giscard d'Estaing]] (1974-81), Socialist [[François Mitterrand]] (1981-95), neo-Gaullist [[Jacques Chirac]] (1995-2007), and [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] (2007-present).

While France continues to revere its rich history and independence, French leaders are increasingly tying the future of France to the continued development of the [[European Union]]. France was integral in establishing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and was among the EU's six founding states. During his tenure, President Mitterrand stressed the importance of European integration and advocated the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on European economic and political union, which France's electorate narrowly approved in September 1992. The center of domestic attention soon shifted, however, to the economic reform and belt-tightening measures required for France to meet the criteria for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) laid out by the Maastricht Treaty.

Jacques Chirac was reelected as president in 2002, and National Assembly elections were held the same year. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., France has played a central role in the war on terrorism. French forces participate in [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] and in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for [[Afghanistan]]. France did not, however, join the coalition that liberated Iraq in 2003, a decision that caused much tension between France and the United States. In October and November 2005, three weeks of violent unrest in the Islamic immigrant suburbs focused French attention further on their minority communities. Also in 2005 French voters disapproved the EU constitution in a national referendum. More recently in the spring of 2006, students protested widely over restrictive employment legislation.

In May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy was elected as France's sixth president under the Fifth Republic. Considered to be a conservative by French standards, his election signalled French approval of widespread economic and social reforms, as well as desiring a closer cooperation with the United States that was still strained over the [[Iraq War]].

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of French Masterpieces]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

 
{{Copyright Details (US Government)|http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

France

2008-10-12T16:59:39Z

SamSamson: /* Geography */

{{Country
|map =France rel94.JPG
|name =''République Française''
|flag =Flag of France.png
|arms =Armoirie France.png
|capital =Paris
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =French
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Nicolas Sarkozy
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =François Fillon
|pm-raw =
|area =260,558 sq mi
|pop =64,102,140 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$1.871 trillion (2007)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$30,100 (2007)
|currency =euro
}}
'''France''' (Official title: ''République Française'', the ''French Republic'') is a country in Western [[Europe]]. One of the oldest countries in Europe, Franch has played a major role in world events since the 18th century.

==Geography==
*Area: 551,670 sq. km. (220,668 sq. mi.); largest west European country, about four-fifths the size of Texas.
*Cities: Capital--Paris. Major cities--Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Nice, Rennes, Lille, Bordeaux.
*Terrain: Varied.
*Climate: Temperate.
*Population : 62,150,775 (July 2008 INSEE est.) excluding overseas territories.

==People==
Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and migration. Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Traditionally, France has had a high level of [[immigration]]. More than 1 million [[Muslims]] immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from [[North Africa]], especially [[Algeria]]. About 85% of the population is [[Roman Catholic]], 8% Muslim, less than 2% [[Protestant]], and about 1% [[Jewish]]. In 2004, there were over 5 million Muslims, largely of North African descent, living in France. France is home to both the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in [[Europe]]. The major ethnic groups in France are: French 90%, Africans 6%, Germans 1% and others 3%

Education is free, beginning at age 2, and mandatory between ages 6 and 16. The [[public education]] system is highly centralized. Private education is primarily Roman Catholic. Higher education in France began with the founding of the [[University of Paris]] in 1150. It now consists of 91 public universities and 175 professional schools, including the post-graduate Grandes Ecoles. Private, college-level institutions focusing on business and management with curricula structured on the American system of credits and semesters have been growing in recent years.

The French language derives from the vernacular Latin spoken by the [[Romans]] in [[Gaul]], although it includes some Celtic and Germanic words. Historically, French has been used as the international language of diplomacy and commerce. Today it remains one of six official languages at the [[United Nations]] and has been a unifying factor in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean.

==Government==
The constitution of the Fifth Republic was approved by public referendum on September 28, 1958. It greatly strengthened the powers of the executive in relation to those of Parliament. Under this constitution, presidents have been elected directly for a 7-year term since 1958. Beginning in 2002, the presidential term of office was reduced to 5 years. The president names the prime minister, presides over the cabinet, commands the armed forces, and concludes treaties. Traditionally, presidents under the Fifth Republic have tended to leave day-to-day policy-making to the Prime Minister and government; the five-year term of office is expected to make presidents more accountable for the results of domestic policies.

The president can submit questions to a national referendum and can dissolve the National Assembly. In certain emergency situations, with the approval of parliament, the president may assume [[dictator]]ial powers and rule by decree. The main components of France's executive branch are the president, the prime minister and government, and the permanent bureaucracies of the many ministries. Led by a prime minister, who is the head of government, the cabinet is composed of a varying number of ministers, ministers-delegate, and secretaries of state. Parliament meets for one 9-[[month]] session each year. Under special circumstances the president can call an additional session.

Under the Constitution, the legislative branch has few checks on executive power; nevertheless, the National Assembly can still cause a government to fall if an absolute majority of the total Assembly membership votes to censure. The Parliament is [[bicameral]] with a National Assembly and a Senate. The National Assembly is the principal legislative body. Its deputies are directly elected to 5-year [[terms]], and all seats are voted on in each election. Senators are chosen by an electoral college and, under new rules passed in 2003 to shorten the term, serve for six years, with one-half of the Senate being renewed every three years. (As a transitional measure in 2004, 62 Senators were elected to 9-year terms, while 61 were elected to 6-year terms; subsequently, all terms will be six years.) The Senate's [[legislature|legislative]] powers are limited; the National Assembly has the last word in the event of a disagreement between the two houses. The government has a strong influence in shaping the agenda of Parliament. The government also can declare a bill to be a question of confidence, thereby linking its continued existence to the passage of the legislative text; unless a motion of censure is introduced and voted, the text is considered adopted without a vote.

A distinctive feature of the French [[judiciary|judicial]] system is that the Constitutional Council protects basic rights when they might be potentially violated by new laws and the Council of State protects basic rights when they might be violated by actions of the state. The Constitutional Council examines legislation and decides whether it conforms to the constitution. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, it considers only legislation that is referred to it by Parliament, the prime minister, or the president. Moreover, it considers legislation before it is promulgated. The Council of State has a separate function from the Constitutional Council and provides recourse to individual citizens who have claims against the administration. The Ordinary Courts--including specialized bodies such as the police court, the criminal court, the correctional tribunal, the commercial court, and the industrial court--settle disputes that arise between citizens, as well as disputes that arise between citizens and corporations. The Court of Appeals reviews cases judged by the Ordinary Courts.

Traditionally, decision-making in France has been highly centralized, with each of France's departments headed by a prefect appointed by the central government. In 1982, the national government passed legislation to decentralize authority by giving a wide range of administrative and fiscal powers to local elected officials. In March 1986, regional councils were directly elected for the first time, and the process of [[decentralization]] continues, albeit at a slow pace.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Nicolas Sarkozy
*Prime Minister--François Fillon
*Foreign Minister--Bernard Kouchner
*Ambassador to the United States--Pierre Vimont (pending accreditation)
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Jean-Marc Rochereau de la Sablière

===Political Conditions===
Since his inauguration in May 2007 as France's sixth president under the Fifth Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy focused his first months in office on improving the performance of France's economy through liberalization of labor markets, higher education and taxes. In the April 22, 2007 first round of presidential elections, Sarkozy, the leader of the center-right, union for a popular Movement (UMP) party, placed first; Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal placed second; centrist François Bayrou placed third; and extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen placed fourth out of a field of 12 candidates. Sarkozy prevailed in the May 6, 2007 second round, defeating Royal by a 53.06% to 46.94% margin. Royal's loss marked the third straight defeat for the Socialist candidate in presidential elections.

President Sarkozy assumed office on May 16, 2007, the last day of Jacques Chirac's official term. Sarkozy named François Fillon Prime Minister. Jean-Louis Borloo, the second highest ranking figure in the government, presides over an expanded Ministry of Environment.. Legislative elections held on June 10 and 17, 2007 gave the UMP a large parliamentary majority. Current key ministers include: Jean-Louis Borloo, Ecology and Sustainable Planning; Michèle Alliot-Marie, Interior; Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Affairs; Christine Lagarde, Economy; Brice Hortefeux, Immigration; Rachida Dati, Justice; and Hervé Morin, Defense.

In electing Nicolas Sarkozy, French voters endorsed the wide-ranging program of reforms--including market-oriented social and economic reforms--that were the focal point of Sarkozy's campaign, implicitly giving him the green light to try and implement these reforms quickly, and allowing a way forward for overcoming France's 2005 rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. By embracing a figure long tagged as "pro-American," French voters also expressed their desire to renew trust in the U.S.-France relationship. During the campaign Sarkozy often ended his stump speeches--evoking Martin Luther King--by calling for a "French dream" of social equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity; and his first speech as President-elect assured his "American friends" that they could rely on France's friendship.

Shortly after taking office, President Sarkozy went to work on a series of reforms to address mounting pressure for short- and long-term restructuring, including reduced government spending, flexibility in the implementation of the 35-hour work week, more labor-market flexibility, less taxation, and further privatization and liberalization of the business sector. French and EU analysts stress that longer-term measures must focus on reducing the future burden of ballooning public pension and health care budgets, as well as reducing labor-related taxes. Government action to initiate such reforms may have contributed to the center-right's poor showing in 2004 regional and European Parliamentary elections, and continues to spark periodic strikes and work stoppages throughout France.

===Foreign Relations===
A charter member of the United Nations, France holds one of the permanent seats in the Security Council and is a member of most of its specialized and related agencies. France is also America's oldest ally; French military intervention was instrumental in helping Britain's American colonies establish independence. Because many battles in which the United States was involved during World War I and World War II took place in France, more American soldiers have been killed on French soil than on that of any other foreign country.

France is a leader in Western Europe because of its size, location, and large economy, membership in European organizations, strong military posture, and energetic diplomacy. France generally has worked to strengthen the global economic and political influence of the EU and its role in common European defense. It views Franco-German cooperation and the development of a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) with other EU members, as the foundation of efforts to enhance European security.

France supports Quartet (U.S.-EU-Russia-UN) efforts to implement the Middle East roadmap, which envisions establishment of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive peace agreement, France supports the involvement of all Arab parties and Israel in a multilateral peace process.

Since 2003, France has supported four UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Iraq, including UNSCR 1546, which laid out a timetable for Iraq's political transition and reaffirmed UNSC authorization for a Multinational Force in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to stabilize the country. France contributed to the 230 million euro EU contribution to Iraq reconstruction in 2003. After the Iraqi Interim Government took power, France agreed to substantial debt relief and offered police training to Iraqi security forces. In 2006, France and the U.S. collaborated closely to create a consensus in the UN to adopt UNSCR 1696 demanding action from Iran to end its enrichment-related and preprocessing activities.

France continues to play an important role in Africa, especially in its former colonies, through aid programs, commercial activities, military agreements, and cultural impact. In those former colonies where the French presence remains important, France has supported political, military, and social stability. France maintains permanent military bases in Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Senegal, and has maintained a long-term military presence in Chad. An attack on French forces in Côte d'Ivoire in 2004 led to the departure of thousands of French nationals from that country. France responded to the crisis in Côte d'Ivoire by dispatching Operation Unicorn, which has worked with UN forces to help stabilize Côte d'Ivoire. France has also deployed forces to Togo (in support of Operation Unicorn in Côte d'Ivoire) and to the Central African Republic, where French forces have assisted government forces in deterring rebel elements. France with EU partners, participated in an international military operation (EUFOR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2006, which played an important presence during in elections that year in the D.R.C. France was instrumental in organizing the June 2007 ministerial conference on Darfur and has shown leadership in increasing international interest and involvement in Chad and the Central African Republic, both of which are affected by the crisis in Darfur.

France has extensive political and commercial relations with Asian countries, including China, Japan, and Southeast Asia as well as an increasing presence in regional fora. France is seeking to broaden its commercial presence in China and will pose a competitive challenge to U.S. business, particularly in aerospace, high-tech, and luxury markets. In Southeast Asia, France was an architect of the 1991 Paris Accords, which ended the conflict in Cambodia.

===Relations with the United States===
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|right|Le Sacre Coeur]]
Relations between the United States and France are active and cordial. Mutual visits by high-level officials are conducted frequently. Bilateral contact at the cabinet level has traditionally been active. France and the United States share common values and have parallel policies on most political, economic, and security issues. Differences are discussed frankly and have not generally been allowed to impair the pattern of close cooperation that characterizes relations between the two countries.

France is one of NATO's top three troop contributors. The French support NATO modernization efforts and are leading contributors to the NATO Response Force (NRF). France is keen to build European defense capabilities, including through the development of EU battle-group sized force packages and joint European military production initiatives. Defense Minister Morin supports development of a European defense that must complement, not compete with, NATO, which remains at the core of transatlantic security. French resistance, however, to efforts to reinforce NATO's reach beyond the North Atlantic region remain a source of contention.

France is a close partner with the U.S. in the war on terror. It cooperates with the U.S. to monitor and disrupt terrorist groups and has processed numerous U.S. requests for information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. French security and intelligence services have rounded up hundreds of extremists in the past year. The French judiciary has upheld the pre-trial detainment of the four French former Guantanamo detainees. France is a strong partner in multiple non-proliferation fora and is a key participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Through the "EU3" (France, the U.K., and Germany), France is working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein with whom they, like other countries had close economic ties, especially in the supply of nuclear technology. Widely referred to as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" in the US, Donald Rumsfeld famously quipped that "going to war without the French is like going on a duck hunt without an accordion".

Despite differences over Iraq, the U.S. and France continue to cooperate closely on many issues, most notably the global war on terrorism, efforts to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and on regional problems, including in Africa, Lebanon, and Kosovo. On Iraq, the French agreed to generous debt relief for Iraq in Paris Club negotiations and have accepted the establishment of a NATO training mission there.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France seeks robust U.S. engagement in the peace process. France is working to contain the Hamas-led challenge to the Palestinian Authority. President Sarkozy, like his predecessor, President Chirac, is committed to keeping France in supportive relations with Israel.

The U.S. and France have worked closely to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, free of Syrian domination, having fought with uncharacteristic tenacity to keep the British out in World War II, but without success.
The U.S. and France co-sponsored in September 2004 UNSCR 1559, which called for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, a free and fair electoral process, and disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. In the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the U.S. and France reiterated calls for a full, immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops and security services from Lebanon. France also co-sponsored UNSCR 1701 and was one of the leading countries in Europe working to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 by committing 2,000 troops to UNIFIL-plus. Strong French backing led to adoption of UNSCR 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to prosecute the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination and other killings of critics of Syria's interference in Lebanon. Foreign Minister Kouchner is working hard to help competing Lebanese political factions agree to a framework for governing the country in accordance with the country's constitution and free from external interference. France also participates in the U.S. Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative.

Trade and investment between the U.S. and France are strong. On average over $1 billion in commercial transactions take place between France the U.S. every day. In 2006 U.S. exports to France totaled over 24.2 billion euros and U.S. imports from France were valued at 37.1 billion euros. France is the eighth partner for total trade of goods (imports plus exports) and the tenth-ranked supplier worldwide to the U.S. and its 10th largest customer. The U.S. is France's third-ranked supplier and its fifth largest customer. There are approximately 2,300 French subsidiaries in the U.S., providing more than 481,100 jobs and generating an estimated $178 billion turnover. U.S. companies in France employ about 603,400 French citizens. The U.S. is the top destination for French investments worldwide.

==Security Issues==
French military doctrine is based on the concepts of national independence, nuclear deterrence, and military sufficiency. France is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and has worked actively with Allies to adapt NATO, internally and externally, to the post-Cold War environment. However, in 1966, the French withdrew from NATO's military bodies while remaining full participants in the alliance's political councils. In December 1995, France announced that it would increase its participation in NATO's military wing, including the Military Committee. France remains a firm supporter of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other efforts at cooperation.

Outside of NATO, France has actively and heavily participated in a variety of peacekeeping/coalition efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans, often taking the lead in these operations. France has undertaken a major restructuring to develop a professional military that will be smaller, more rapidly deployable and better tailored for operations outside of mainland France. Key elements of the restructuring include reducing personnel, bases, and headquarters and rationalizing equipment and the armament industry. French active-duty military in June 2007 numbered about 350,000 (including Gendarmes), of which nearly 34,000 were deployed outside of French territory. France completed the move to all-professional armed forces when conscription ended on December 31, 2002.

France places a high priority on arms control and non-proliferation. After conducting a final series of six nuclear tests, the French signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. France has implemented a moratorium on the production, export, and use of anti-personnel landmines and supports negotiations leading toward a universal ban. France is an active participant in the major supplier regimes designed to restrict transfer of technologies that could lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group (for chemical and biological weapons), the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. France participates actively in the Proliferation Security Initiative, and is engaged with the U.S., both bilaterally and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to curb nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) proliferation from the D.P.R.K., Iran, Libya, and elsewhere. France has joined with the U.S., Germany, and the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council to offer a package of incentives and disincentives to Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities. France has also signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. France maintains a color-coded security system, similar to that of the U.S., consisting of yellow, orange, red and scarlet threat levels.

At least 12 French soldiers have been killed in [[Afghanistan]] during [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] since its inception in 2001.<ref>Anon., [http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10651794&CFID=10819516&CFTOKEN=58cc719e037c97de-2515EEEE-B27C-BB00-012942FB89A6CFE4 Where the sniping has to stop] ''The Economist'', 7th February, 2008.</ref>

==Economy==
With a GDP of approximately $2 trillion, France is the sixth-largest economy. It has substantial agricultural resources, a large industrial base, and a highly skilled work force. A dynamic services sector accounts for an increasingly large share of economic activity and is responsible for nearly all job creation in recent years. GDP growth was 1.1% in 2003, after two years of steady decline from 3.9% in 2000. GDP growth was 1.7% in 2005, down from 2.5% in 2004 (2000 price basis).

Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. French unemployment dropped from a high of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s, and after hovering around 10% during the 2000s, unemployment slipped once again to 8.0% in July 2007. France joined 10 other European Union countries in adopting the euro as its currency in January 1999. Since then, monetary policy has been set by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. On January 1, 2002, France, along with the other countries of the euro zone, dropped its national currency in favor of euro bills and coins.

Despite significant reform and privatization over the past 15 years, the government continues to control a large share of economic activity: Government spending, at 53.5% of GDP in 2006, is among the highest in the G-7. Regulation of labor and product markets is pervasive. The government continues to own shares in corporations in a range of sectors, including banking, energy production and distribution, automobiles, transportation, and telecommunications.

Legislation passed in 1998 shortened the legal work week from 39 to 35 hours for most employees effective January 1, 2000. Recent assessments of the impact of work week reduction on growth and jobs have generally concluded that the goal of job creation was not met. The former administration introduced increasing flexibility into the law, returning the country to a de facto (if not de jure) 39-hour work week in the private sector. Under President Nicolas Sarkozy's impetus, overtime work will be exempt from income taxes on October 1, 2007, a move to encourage work and to increase work duration.

Membership in France's labor unions accounts for approximately 5% of the private sector work force and is concentrated in the manufacturing, transportation, and heavy industry sectors. Most unions are affiliated with one of the competing national federations, the largest and most powerful of which are the communist-dominated General Labor Confederation (CGT), the Workers' Force (FO), and the French Democratic Confederation of Labor (CFDT).

France has been very successful in developing dynamic telecommunications, aerospace, and weapons sectors. With virtually no domestic oil production, France has relied heavily on the development of nuclear power, which now accounts for about 80% of the country's electricity production.

===Trade===
[[Image:French-Perfume.jpg|right|280px]]
France is the second-largest trading nation in Western Europe (after Germany). France ran a $33.7 billion deficit in 2006. Total trade for 2006 amounted to $1,013.5 billion, over 45% of GDP 75.0% of which was with EU-24 countries. In 2003, U.S.-France trade in goods and services totaled $80.3 billion. U.S. industrial chemicals, aircraft and engines, electronic components, telecommunications, computer software, computers and peripherals, analytical and scientific instrumentation, medical instruments and supplies, broadcasting equipment, and programming and franchising are particularly attractive to French importers. Total French trade of goods and services was $1,001 billion in 2006.

Principal French exports to the United States are [[aircraft]] and [[engine]]s, beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, cosmetics, and luxury products. France is the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States.

===Agriculture===
France is the European Union's leading agricultural producer, accounting for about one-third of all agricultural land within the EU. Northern France is characterized by large wheat farms. Dairy products, pork, poultry, and apple production are concentrated in the western region. Beef production is located in central France, while the production of fruits, vegetables, and wine ranges from central to southern France. France is a large producer of many agricultural products and is expanding its forestry and fishery industries. The implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Uruguay Round of the GATT Agreement resulted in reforms in the agricultural sector of the economy. Continued revision of the CAP and reforms agreed under the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) will further change French agriculture. France remains Europe's strongest opponent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and often assumes an agricultural position at the EU Council to promote this policy.

France is the world's second-largest agricultural producer, after the United States. However, the destination of 70% of its exports is other EU member states. Wheat, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products are the principal exports. The United States, although the second-largest exporter to France, faces stiff competition from domestic production, other EU member states, and third countries. U.S. agricultural exports to France, totaling $464 million in 2003, consist primarily of soybeans and products, feeds and fodders, seafood, and consumer oriented products, especially snack foods and nuts. French agricultural exports to the United States are mainly cheese, processed products, and wine. They amount to about $3.327 billion (2006) annually.

==History==
[[Image:Renoir Monet pintando en su jardín de Argenteuil.jpg|right|300px|French art]]
France was one of the earliest countries in Europe to progress from feudalism to the nation-state. Its monarchs surrounded themselves with capable ministers, and French armies were among the most innovative, disciplined, and professional of their day. During the reign of [[Louis XIV]] (1643-1715), France was the dominant power in Europe. But overly ambitious projects and military campaigns of Louis and his successors led to chronic financial problems in the 18th Century. Deteriorating economic conditions and popular resentment against the complicated system of privileges granted the nobility and clerics were among the principal causes of the French Revolution (1789-94). Although the revolutionaries advocated republican and egalitarian principles of government, France reverted to forms of absolute rule or constitutional monarchy four times--the Empire of [[Napoleon]], the Restoration of Louis XVIII, the reign of Louis-Philippe, and the Second Empire of [[Napoleon III]]. After the [[Franco-Prussian War]] (1870), the Third Republic was established and lasted until the military defeat of 1940 at the hands of the Germans.

[[World War I]] (1914-18) brought great losses of troops and material. In the 1920s, France established an elaborate system of border defenses (the Maginot Line) and alliances to offset resurgent German strength. Unfortunately for France that defense was based on the trench warfare of World War I and provided a poor plan for the [[Blitzkreig]] tactics that the Germans had developed. France was defeated early in [[World War II]] when it was quickly overrun by [[Nazi Germany]] and was occupied in June 1940. In July, the country was divided into two: one section being ruled directly by the Germans, and a second controlled by the French ([[Vichy France]]) and which the Germans did not occupy. German and Italian forces occupied all of France, including the "Vichy" zone, following the Allied invasion of North Africa in November 1942. The "Vichy" government largely acquiesced to German plans, namely in the plunder of French resources and the forceful deportations of tens of thousands of French [[Jews]] living in France to [[concentration camp]]s across Europe, and was even more completely under German control following the German military occupation of November 1942. Economically, a full one-half of France's public sector revenue was appropriated by Germany. After 4 years of occupation and strife, Allied forces liberated France from Germany control in 1944.

France emerged from [[World War II]] to face a series of new problems. After a short period of provisional government initially led by Gen. [[Charles de Gaulle]], the Fourth Republic was set up by a new constitution and established as a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. French military involvement in both [[Vietnam]] and [[Algeria]] combined with the mixed nature of the coalitions and a consequent lack of agreement caused successive cabinet crises and changes of government.

Finally, on May 13, 1958, the government structure collapsed as a result of the negative public opinion pressures generated by four years of war in Algeria. A threatened coup led the Parliament to call on General de Gaulle to head the government and prevent civil war. Marking the beginning of the Fifth Republic, he became prime minister in June 1958 and was elected president in December of that year. Also resulting from the Algerian conflict, were decades of increased immigration from the Maghreb states, which functioned to change the composition of French society. The French had believed that the immigrants would assimilate into French society, but over time the opposite occurred as the groups came to think of themselves not so much by their separate African nation ancestory but instead by their Islamic background. Enclaves of 'nations within a nation' would eventually form where all signs would be in Arabic. This would cause further trouble in modern times.

Seven years later, for the first time in the 20th Century, the people of France went to the polls to elect a president by direct ballot. De Gaulle won re-election with a 55% share of the vote, defeating François Mitterrand. In April 1969, President de Gaulle's government conducted a national referendum on the creation of 21 regions with limited political powers. The government's proposals were defeated, and de Gaulle subsequently resigned. Succeeding him as president of France have been Gaullist [[Georges Pompidou]] (1969-74), Independent Republican [[Valery Giscard d'Estaing]] (1974-81), Socialist [[François Mitterrand]] (1981-95), neo-Gaullist [[Jacques Chirac]] (1995-2007), and [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] (2007-present).

While France continues to revere its rich history and independence, French leaders are increasingly tying the future of France to the continued development of the [[European Union]]. France was integral in establishing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and was among the EU's six founding states. During his tenure, President Mitterrand stressed the importance of European integration and advocated the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on European economic and political union, which France's electorate narrowly approved in September 1992. The center of domestic attention soon shifted, however, to the economic reform and belt-tightening measures required for France to meet the criteria for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) laid out by the Maastricht Treaty.

Jacques Chirac was reelected as president in 2002, and National Assembly elections were held the same year. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., France has played a central role in the war on terrorism. French forces participate in [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] and in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for [[Afghanistan]]. France did not, however, join the coalition that liberated Iraq in 2003, a decision that caused much tension between France and the United States. In October and November 2005, three weeks of violent unrest in the Islamic immigrant suburbs focused French attention further on their minority communities. Also in 2005 French voters disapproved the EU constitution in a national referendum. More recently in the spring of 2006, students protested widely over restrictive employment legislation.

In May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy was elected as France's sixth president under the Fifth Republic. Considered to be a conservative by French standards, his election signalled French approval of widespread economic and social reforms, as well as desiring a closer cooperation with the United States that was still strained over the [[Iraq War]].

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of French Masterpieces]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

 
{{Copyright Details (US Government)|http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

Affirmative Action

2008-10-12T16:56:49Z

SamSamson:

'''Affirmative action''' means giving someone a preference or advantage based on the color of his skin, or gender, and often for political motivation. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of '''affirmative action'''.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some so-called minorities that are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students due to the fact that students admitted through affirmative action programs are more likely to be unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

Most recently, the Justice Department was found to be engaging in affirmative-action-style hiring practices for [[conservatives]]. Instead of taking the best candidates for various jobs and internships, Republican appointees in the Department had been found to have commandeered the hiring process and were denying jobs to most qualified people who were or were thought to be liberal and giving jobs to conservatives who were less qualified.

==See Also==
* [[Affirmative Action President]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

Secular

2008-10-12T16:53:21Z

SamSamson:

The term '''secular''' is generally used to mean "worldly, as differentiated from ecclesiastical." The term has changed meaning dramatically over time. Its original definition preserved its Latin meaning - "of an age" - as evinced in the [[Secular Games]], or the [[Carmen Secularae]] ("Song of the Augustan Age") by Horace.

The term is euphemistically used by [[atheists]] who do not want to admit how they sneakily impose their belief system in public institutions.
[[Category:Religious terms]]

Secular

2008-10-12T16:53:11Z

SamSamson:

The term '''secular''' is generally used to mean "worldly, as differentiated from ecclesiastical." The term has changed meaning dramatically over time. Its original definition preserved its Latin meaning - "of an age" - as evinced in the [[Secular Games]], or the [[Carmen Secularae]] ("Song of the Augustan Age") by Horace.

The term is euphemistically used by [[atheists]] who do not want to admit how they impose their belief system in public institutions.
[[Category:Religious terms]]

Paris

2008-10-12T16:51:11Z

SamSamson:

''For Paris from the [[Trojan War]] please click [[Paris (mythology)|here]]''
[[Image:Tour - Eiffel.jpg|thumb|left|140px|Eiffel Tower]]

'''Paris''' is situated on the [[River Seine]] and is the capital and largest city of [[France]]. The population of the Greater Paris urban area is approximately 10 million, or almost one-sixth of the total population of France, with over 2.1 million in the city of Paris itself.

==History==
[[Image:Notre Dame.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Notre Dame cathedral]]
As with many other important cities in Europe, the Romans set up a military outpost (52 B.C.) on the location that would one day become Paris. In the 6th century A.D., King [[Clovis I]] established Paris as his capital. This was confirmed when [[Huge Capet]] became king of France in 987 A.D. Growth increased under the reign of [[Philip II]] (1180-1223) and Paris remained the capital when [[Louis XIV]] set up his court in [[Versailles]] in 1682. The [[Germans]] occupied Paris in [[World War II]]. It was liberated near the end of the war, but was largely undamaged.<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>

Famous Paris landmarks include:
*[[Eiffel Tower]]
*[[Arc de Triomphe]]
*[[Louvre]]
*[[Notre Dame cathedral]], which was the setting for [[Victor Hugo]]'s novel, ''[[The Hunchback of Notredame]]''.
*Montmartre

==Urban Unrest==
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|thumb|right|240px|Sacre Coeur]]
Some of the suburbs around Paris (''les banlieues''), especially to the northeast, are known for large apartment blocks, housing many of the latest Muslim immigrants to France. These have been rocked by violence as youths rioted against the alleged intolerance of the police forces.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:French Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Paris

2008-10-12T16:50:16Z

SamSamson: /* Urban Unrest */

''For Paris from the [[Trojan War]] please click [[Paris (mythology)|here]]''
[[Image:Tour - Eiffel.jpg|thumb|left|140px|Eiffel Tower]]

'''Paris''' is situated on the [[River Seine]] and is the capital and largest city of [[France]]. The population of the Greater Paris urban area is approximately 10 million, or almost one-sixth of the total population of France.

==History==
[[Image:Notre Dame.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Notre Dame cathedral]]
As with many other important cities in Europe, the Romans set up a military outpost (52 B.C.) on the location that would one day become Paris. In the 6th century A.D., King [[Clovis I]] established Paris as his capital. This was confirmed when [[Huge Capet]] became king of France in 987 A.D. Growth increased under the reign of [[Philip II]] (1180-1223) and Paris remained the capital when [[Louis XIV]] set up his court in [[Versailles]] in 1682. The [[Germans]] occupied Paris in [[World War II]]. It was liberated near the end of the war, but was largely undamaged.<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>

Famous Paris landmarks include:
*[[Eiffel Tower]]
*[[Arc de Triomphe]]
*[[Louvre]]
*[[Notre Dame cathedral]], which was the setting for [[Victor Hugo]]'s novel, ''[[The Hunchback of Notredame]]''.
*Montmartre

==Urban Unrest==
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|thumb|right|240px|Sacre Coeur]]
Some of the suburbs around Paris (''les banlieues''), especially to the northeast, are known for large apartment blocks, housing many of the latest Muslim immigrants to France. These have been rocked by violence as youths rioted against the alleged intolerance of the police forces.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:French Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2008-10-12T16:45:48Z

SamSamson: /* Soviet Union */ Previous sentence barely intelligible.

{{President
|image=Aaag.jpg
|seq=40
|term_start=January 20, 1981
|term_end=January 20, 1989<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=George H. W. Bush
|previous=Jimmy Carter
|next=George H. W. Bush
|birth_date=February 6, 1911
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA
|death_date=June 5, 2004
|death_place=Bel Air, California
|spouse=Jane Wyman
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=Presbyterian
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), [[United States]] President and considered by some to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] severing two terms from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>

In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. [[Gorbachev]], tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic [[Speaker of the House]], [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.

==Early Life==
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of [[athletics]] and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during [[World War II]], but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of War Bonds.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>

Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the [[Screen Actors Guild]]. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement." Reagan met his second wife, actress [[Nancy Davis]], when she came to Reagan for help as she was concerned because another actress with the same name ended up on the "black list."<ref> [http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F70F1FF9395C17728DDDAF0A94D8415B8084F1D3 The Biggest Role of Nancy's Life]</ref><ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref>

==Governor of California==
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:

*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Opposed the Dos Rios Dam.

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged [[Gerald Ford]] for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with George Herbert Walker Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election he received 50.75% of the popular vote, beating Jimmy Carter by almost 10%, and also won 90.9% of the electoral vote. Riding his strong showing, the Republicans won enough seats in the United States Senate to take control of that chamber for the first time in decades. The results were a shock as polling had been showing a close contest heading into the day of the election.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Margaret Thatcher]] and some assistance from [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the [[Warsaw Pact]]".</ref>

March 30, 1981 there was an unsuccessful assassination attempt on President Reagan at the Washington Hilton Hotel in [[Washington, D.C.]] John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan and injured 3 others. Reagan survived and was able to recover quickly.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]] As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "Reaganomics." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high inflation and unemployment when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act, which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Ronald Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, President Reagan nominated Superior Court judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the retiring [[Potter Stewart]]. There were some concerns by social conservatives and Pro-Life groups over whether she would overturn [[Roe v. Wade]]. Nevertheless, she was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated [[Washington]] circuit judge, former Solicitor General and former acting [[Attorney General]] [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. [[Senate]] [[Liberal]]s attacked Bork as being too [[conservative]]. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]), criticized him, saying,

''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

On October 23, 1987, the U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. [[Anthony Kennedy]] was then nominated for the seat, where he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on [[drugs]]", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in [[television]] advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use went from thirty-three percent of high-school seniors in 1980 to twelve percent in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==
Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars was spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, technologies were developed from the program that had practical uses in society. For instance lasik eye surgery came about through developments generated by the SDI program.

While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians believe that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] by the Soviets on September 1, 1983. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given armament that was used to combat the Soviet Union. However the plan backfired, since the same weapons are now being used by the Taliban against the United States.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>

By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy{{fact}}. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power{{fact}}. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>

[[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>

*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a regenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity. He died at his Bel-Air home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history.

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>
*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office.
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans].
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>

== Quotes ==
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[founding fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>

==See also==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet relations from Nixon to Reagan'' (1994), by liberal
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America
====notes====
<references/>

==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' 1981.
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. 1981. Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.

====Primary sources by Reagan aides====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stcokman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary
===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by [[Alfred Regnery]]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.

[[Category:Ronald Reagan]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]

Dwight D. Eisenhower

2008-10-12T16:39:03Z

SamSamson:

{{President
|image=Yte7567.jpg
|seq=34
|term_start=January 20, 1953
|term_end=January 20, 1961<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=Richard Nixon
|previous=Harry S. Truman
|next=John F. Kennedy
|birth_date=October 14, 1890
|birth_place=Denison, Texas
|death_date=March 28, 1969
|death_place=Washington, D.C.
|spouse=[[Mamie Doud Eisenhower]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
}}

'''Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower''' was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during [[World War II]], and went on to serve as 34th [[President of the United States of America]].

==Early Life==
Dwight D. Eisenhower was born in Texas, but was raised in Kansas. Eisenhower attended the United States Military Academy at West Point (class of 1915), which put him somewhat at odds with his upbringing as a Jehovah's Witness <ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/listofholdingshtml/listofholdingsJ/jehovahwitnessesabilenecongregation.pdf</ref>. (Eisenhower later became baptized into the Presbyterian church, the timing of which made him the first President to become baptized while in office <ref>http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/eisenhower.html</ref>.) Eisenhower was stationed in Texas during World War I. There he met his future wife, Mamie Geneva Doud.

==First Term==
After [[Harry Truman]] decided against running for a third term in the [[United States presidential election, 1952|1952 Presidential Election]], Eisenhower ran on the [[Republican]] ticket, though he was asked to run as a [[Democrat]] as well. He refused to run as a Democrat because they supported a weak U.S. military. With a large amount of popularity from serving as a [[General]] in [[World War II]], he won the election against former [[Illinois]] governor [[Adlai Stevenson]]. His military experience was deemed important, as the [[United States]] was perceived by many as being under threat. <ref>http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2004/election_policy.html</ref> The [[Soviet Union]] had developed the [[atomic bomb]] several years before, in 1949, and the U.S. was involved in the [[Korean War]].

During this term, the Korean War ended in a stalemate after a treaty was signed. Eisenhower's term in office is also notable for the creation of the Interstate Highway System, which was funded by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 <ref>http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.html</ref>.

==Second Term==
Eisenhower was re-elected in the [[United States presidential election, 1956|1956 Presidential Election]] and served a second term. A popular President throughout his tenure in office, his popularity did not lead to a coattail effect as his [[Vice President]] [[Richard Nixon]] barely lost his own Presidential bid in the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 Presidentail Election]] and the [[Republican Party]] lost 12 seats in the [[U.S. Senate]]. Eisenhower's final speech as President was his most well known, in which he warned of the "[[military-industrial complex]]". <ref>http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html</ref>

==Miscellaneous==
The Eisenhower Presidential Library & Musem is located in Abilene, [[Kansas]]. <ref>http://www.dwightdeisenhower.com/library-museum.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Eisenhower, Dwight D}}

[[Category:World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Nationwide

2008-10-12T15:37:54Z

SamSamson:

'''Nationwide''' means covering or affecting the whole of a country. A common synonym is ''countrywide''.

Decimate

2008-10-12T15:33:40Z

SamSamson: missing word. Article remains substandard.

Decimate is a word often used in the English language to mean 'to utterly destroy.'

While this use is often accepted, a much more precise definition would be 'to destroy, remove, or punish 1/10th.'

Paraphrase

2008-10-12T12:44:07Z

SamSamson:

To '''paraphrase''' means to reword, generally in a shorter or more easily understood form than the original. Paraphrase is often associated with [[plagiarism]].

Hollywood values

2008-10-12T12:24:05Z

SamSamson: faulty grammar

'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.

There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*Stephen Clark, 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref>
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*Lee Grivas, 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, pedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref>
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual mores characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Example include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* [[Freddie Mercury]] of the rock group Queen, notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref>
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref> Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk in driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three seperate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:<fill in>

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

*[[Recount]]
: The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republican 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. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref>

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

The following have checked into a different facilities for psychological problems:

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine and was date-raped] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

==See also==
*[[Supermodel]]s

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]