Changes

# 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]]).

# 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>

# [[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>

# 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">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 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>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</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]  

# 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 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 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 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>

#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 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>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>

#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.

#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.

# 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>

# 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>

# 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>

# [[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/>

# [[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/>

== References ==

== References ==