Changes

[[Image:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Phyllis Schlafly]]

[[Image:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Phyllis Schlafly]]

This article lists examples of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Bias in Wikipedia]], as it relates to Conservative Politicians and Personalities:

This article lists examples of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Bias in Wikipedia]], as it relates to Conservative Politicians and Personalities:

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>^{[dead link]}

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>^{[dead link]}

# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe]

# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe]

# On June 21, 2012, an IP added an allegation to the biography of [[Bob Livingston]] saying that he was a "part of a broad criminal conspiracy involving Turkish operatives and Representatives Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, and Tom Lantos."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=498647198</ref> This remained in the article until 2013.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=556359990</ref>

# On June 21, 2012, an IP added an allegation to the biography of [[Bob Livingston]] saying that he was a "part of a broad criminal conspiracy involving Turkish operatives and Representatives Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, and Tom Lantos."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=498647198</ref> This remained in the article until 2013.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=556359990</ref>

# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref>

# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref>

#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>

#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>

#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from.<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> Conservative [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater. Although this exclusion is accurate, it demonstrates a [[double standard]] when comparing liberals and conservatives.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>

#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from.<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> Conservative [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater. Although this exclusion is accurate, it demonstrates a [[double standard]] when comparing liberals and conservatives.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>

# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."  Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref>  Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>

# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."  Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref>  Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>

# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a ''NY Times'' book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even though the reviewer is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page. The Schlafly article has been repeatedly vadalized.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=449399938&oldid=448715966|author=Mooreturns|date=Sept. 9, 2011|title=Phyllis Schlafly}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=next&oldid=351501626</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=319693606&oldid=319410037</ref>

# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a ''NY Times'' book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even though the reviewer is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page. The Schlafly article has been repeatedly vadalized.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=449399938&oldid=448715966|author=Mooreturns|date=Sept. 9, 2011|title=Phyllis Schlafly}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=next&oldid=351501626</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=319693606&oldid=319410037</ref>

# The Wikipedia page on [[John Lott]], a respected conservative commentator and academic, cites supposed errors in Lott's characterization of [[liberal bias]] against gun owners in his book ''More Guns, Less Crime''. In fact, Lott's figures are accurate, and Wikipedia's sanctimonious claim of "bias" for his exposure of liberal media bias smacks of [[liberal hypocrisy]]. The rest of the entry is also filled with other unfounded smears and accusations attempting to silence his factual conservatism, characteristic of Wikipedia's [[liberal censorship]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</ref>   

# The Wikipedia page on [[John Lott]], a respected conservative commentator and academic, cites supposed errors in Lott's characterization of [[liberal bias]] against gun owners in his book ''More Guns, Less Crime''. In fact, Lott's figures are accurate, and Wikipedia's sanctimonious claim of "bias" for his exposure of liberal media bias smacks of [[liberal hypocrisy]]. The rest of the entry is also filled with other unfounded smears and accusations attempting to silence his factual conservatism, characteristic of Wikipedia's [[liberal censorship]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</ref>   

# Despite Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neo#Neologisms policy on not including "neologisms"], the disgusting and hateful term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum] is listed on Wikipedia and ranks #2 in Google. This was a smear term specifically invented by gay rights activist [[Dan Savage]] to be derogatory of Republican [[Presidential Election 2012|Presidential candidate]] [[Rick Santorum]]. Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons also is said to restrict material that may cause "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum harm to the subject]." The page has existed for five years, was nominated for deletion, but all the liberal editors of Wikipedia had their say, and the article has been kept. The article was also repeatedly nominated for "good article" status.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29/GA1</ref>

# Despite Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neo#Neologisms policy on not including "neologisms"], the disgusting and hateful term [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum] is listed on Wikipedia and ranks #2 in Google. This was a smear term specifically invented by gay rights activist [[Dan Savage]] to be derogatory of Republican [[Presidential Election 2012|Presidential candidate]] [[Rick Santorum]]. Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons also is said to restrict material that may cause "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum harm to the subject]." The page has existed for five years, was nominated for deletion, but all the liberal editors of Wikipedia had their say, and the article has been kept. The article was also repeatedly nominated for "good article" status.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29/GA1</ref>

# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers.  In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref>  Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.

# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers.  In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref>  Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.

# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</ref> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</ref> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>

#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's Wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from [[Tony Rezko]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref> but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>

#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's Wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from [[Tony Rezko]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref> but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>

#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense.  [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily towards the [[Democratic Party]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democrat opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>

#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense.  [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily towards the [[Democratic Party]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democrat opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1 The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008]</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1 The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008]</ref>

#On July 28, 2010, the United States was listed as a "belligerent" fighting on the side of Iraq in Wikipedia's "Iran-Iraq War" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=375898707&oldid=375895692</ref>  On July 15, 2010, [[Ronald Reagan]] was listed under "commanders and leaders" as a commander of Iraqi forces, alongside Saddam Hussein and his thugs.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=368133799&oldid=368122576</ref>   

#On July 28, 2010, the United States was listed as a "belligerent" fighting on the side of Iraq in Wikipedia's "Iran-Iraq War" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=375898707&oldid=375895692</ref>  On July 15, 2010, [[Ronald Reagan]] was listed under "commanders and leaders" as a commander of Iraqi forces, alongside Saddam Hussein and his thugs.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=368133799&oldid=368122576</ref>   

#  Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls [[Eagle Forum]] dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.

#  Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls [[Eagle Forum]] dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.

#  Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>

#  Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>

#  [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:

#  [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:

#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>

#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>

#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>

#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>

#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>

#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>

#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>

#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>

#  In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>

#  In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>

#  Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper.

#  Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper.

#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]].  For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref>  But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>

#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]].  For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref>  But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>

#  Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democrat Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.

#  Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democrat Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.

#  Wikipedia's article about the late Senator [[John Tower]] of Texas, who moved leftward as his tenure in the Senate advanced, includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.

#  Wikipedia's article about the late Senator [[John Tower]] of Texas, who moved leftward as his tenure in the Senate advanced, includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.

# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref> but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)

# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref> but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)

#Wikipedia reported on the [[Glen Beck]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size "Restoring Honor rally"] with an emphasis on the dispute over the estimates of the size of the crowd.  Although Beck claimed 500,000 attended, Wikipedia reported that "a scientific estimate placed the crowd size around 87,000, while media reports varied dramatically from tens of thousands to 500,000."  In contrast, Wikipedia's coverage of the [[Jon Stewart]]/[[Stephen Colbert]] "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" merely reported "About 215,000 people attended the rally, according to aerial photography analysis by AirPhotosLive.com for CBS News." without giving any conflicting estimates.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear&oldid=504295774</ref>

#Wikipedia reported on the [[Glen Beck]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size "Restoring Honor rally"] with an emphasis on the dispute over the estimates of the size of the crowd.  Although Beck claimed 500,000 attended, Wikipedia reported that "a scientific estimate placed the crowd size around 87,000, while media reports varied dramatically from tens of thousands to 500,000."  In contrast, Wikipedia's coverage of the [[Jon Stewart]]/[[Stephen Colbert]] "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" merely reported "About 215,000 people attended the rally, according to aerial photography analysis by AirPhotosLive.com for CBS News." without giving any conflicting estimates.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear&oldid=504295774</ref>

#The Wikipedia article on the [[Council for National Policy]] cites to liberal sources critical of the CNP pointing out its private membership lists, closed meetings and litigation involving its tax exemption, without also citing to conservative sources that view the CNP in a more favorable light.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy&oldid=508133295|accessdate=August 23, 2012|title=Council for National Policy}}</ref>

#The Wikipedia article on the [[Council for National Policy]] cites to liberal sources critical of the CNP pointing out its private membership lists, closed meetings and litigation involving its tax exemption, without also citing to conservative sources that view the CNP in a more favorable light.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy&oldid=508133295|accessdate=August 23, 2012|title=Council for National Policy}}</ref>

# Wikipedia's entries about media sources are biased towards the liberal media. In its entry on [[Fox News]], Fox's conservatism is mentioned in the first paragraph,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news</ref> but its first paragraph on liberally slanted CNN offers no such information.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn</ref>

# Wikipedia's entries about media sources are biased towards the liberal media. In its entry on [[Fox News]], Fox's conservatism is mentioned in the first paragraph,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news</ref> but its first paragraph on liberally slanted CNN offers no such information.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn</ref>

#Although [[Clint Eastwood]]'s speech at the [[2012 Republican National Convention]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ was a clever one], Wikipedia catered to the liberal media, which hyped and mocked his speech as ridiculous and detrimental to the [[Republican Party|Republican]] cause, by creating a whole article on his appearance.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention Wikipedia: Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention]</ref> Even though the famous actor already had a long section in his article on politics, Wikipedia felt it was necessary to create a whole new article to further the left's ridicule of him.

#Although [[Clint Eastwood]]'s speech at the [[2012 Republican National Convention]] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ was a clever one], Wikipedia catered to the liberal media, which hyped and mocked his speech as ridiculous and detrimental to the [[Republican Party|Republican]] cause, by creating a whole article on his appearance.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention Wikipedia: Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention]</ref> Even though the famous actor already had a long section in his article on politics, Wikipedia felt it was necessary to create a whole new article to further the left's ridicule of him.

# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims.  For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims.  For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.

# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.

#  [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>

#  [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>

# Conservative activist [[Larry Klayman]]'s biography on Wikipedia was repeatedly edited over a 6-month period by an editor account created only for that purpose.  The result was a six-month edit war with an editor who repeatedly removed the unsubstantiated allegations taken from a legal document in his divorce case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#6_month_edit_war_on_Larry_Klayman|title=6 month edit ware on Larry Klayman|accessdate=October 18, 2013}}</ref>

# Conservative activist [[Larry Klayman]]'s biography on Wikipedia was repeatedly edited over a 6-month period by an editor account created only for that purpose.  The result was a six-month edit war with an editor who repeatedly removed the unsubstantiated allegations taken from a legal document in his divorce case.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#6_month_edit_war_on_Larry_Klayman|title=6 month edit ware on Larry Klayman|accessdate=October 18, 2013}}</ref>

# During conservative Senator [[Mitch McConnell]]'s 2014 re-election campaign, someone edited his Wikipedia biography to say that he was a turtle.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/09/23/mcconnell-turtle-wikipedia/16120239/|title=Wikipedia swift to remove McConnell turtle entry|date=September 23, 2014|accessdate=October 6, 2014|work=USA Today}}</ref>

# During conservative Senator [[Mitch McConnell]]'s 2014 re-election campaign, someone edited his Wikipedia biography to say that he was a turtle.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/09/23/mcconnell-turtle-wikipedia/16120239/|title=Wikipedia swift to remove McConnell turtle entry|date=September 23, 2014|accessdate=October 6, 2014|work=USA Today}}</ref>

# On August 19, 2015, an editor edited the Wikipedia article of former White House Press Secretary and conservative-leaning commentator [[Dana Perino]] to add a section about her views on atheism. There was only one sentence in the section, taken completely out of context and out of place with the rest of the article: "Perino said atheists should leave America, stating 'they don't have to live here'".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Perino&diff=676763635&oldid=670144439</ref> Several people tried to remove that section and two people tried to place the comment in context, but the editor persistently re-added that section. As of July 2016, the section has been removed.

# On August 19, 2015, an editor edited the Wikipedia article of former White House Press Secretary and conservative-leaning commentator [[Dana Perino]] to add a section about her views on atheism. There was only one sentence in the section, taken completely out of context and out of place with the rest of the article: "Perino said atheists should leave America, stating 'they don't have to live here'".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Perino&diff=676763635&oldid=670144439</ref> Several people tried to remove that section and two people tried to place the comment in context, but the editor persistently re-added that section. As of July 2016, the section has been removed.

# The Wikipedia article for U.S. Senator [[Jesse Helms]] has a strong left-leaning bias. In the section about his political and social views, the only two subsections were titled "Racism" and "Homophobia" (since corrected<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Helms&diff=708447585&oldid=708112034</ref>) with disproportionately long and detailed information about these alleged views. Additionally, Helm's article labeled him a "conspiracy theorist", despite there being no information to substantiate such a claim (since removed<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Helms&diff=726207903&oldid=724448198</ref>).

# The Wikipedia article for U.S. Senator [[Jesse Helms]] has a strong left-leaning bias. In the section about his political and social views, the only two subsections were titled "Racism" and "Homophobia" (since corrected<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Helms&diff=708447585&oldid=708112034</ref>) with disproportionately long and detailed information about these alleged views. Additionally, Helm's article labeled him a "conspiracy theorist", despite there being no information to substantiate such a claim (since removed<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Helms&diff=726207903&oldid=724448198</ref>).

# In the Wikipedia article about Milo Yiannopoulos,<ref>http://web.archive.org/save/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Controversies</ref> under the section of the article entitled "Controversies", it lists a controversy as his sexuality.  However, for any other gay person especially on the left, they do not do such a thing.

# In the Wikipedia article about Milo Yiannopoulos,<ref>http://web.archive.org/save/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Controversies</ref> under the section of the article entitled "Controversies", it lists a controversy as his sexuality.  However, for any other gay person especially on the left, they do not do such a thing.

# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170805173406/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> in the final sentence of the final paragraph of the introductory section, it says, "After Trump dismissed FBI Director [[James Comey]], the Justice Department appointed his predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.".  However, for Presidential candidates [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://web.archive.org/save/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> and [[Bernie Sanders]],<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170805173635/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders</ref> who are both under FBI investigation, it does not do such a thing what so ever.

# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170805173406/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> in the final sentence of the final paragraph of the introductory section, it says, "After Trump dismissed FBI Director [[James Comey]], the Justice Department appointed his predecessor Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the presidential election, potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related matters.".  However, for Presidential candidates [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://web.archive.org/save/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> and [[Bernie Sanders]],<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170805173635/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders</ref> who are both under FBI investigation, it does not do such a thing what so ever.

#A Wikipedia article solely devoted to criticizing President Trump's "unusual" handshakes survived a nomination for deletion despite a minority of editors supporting keeping the article, and it was later linked on the main page.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 13, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/13/article-about-trumps-handshakes-appears-on-front-page-of-wikipedia-after-minority-block-deletion/ Wikipedia Features Front-Page Article Criticizing President Trump’s Handshakes]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.</ref>

#A Wikipedia article solely devoted to criticizing President Trump's "unusual" handshakes survived a nomination for deletion despite a minority of editors supporting keeping the article, and it was later linked on the main page.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 13, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/13/article-about-trumps-handshakes-appears-on-front-page-of-wikipedia-after-minority-block-deletion/ Wikipedia Features Front-Page Article Criticizing President Trump’s Handshakes]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.</ref>

#The Wikipedia article on [[Donald Trump]],<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20170927001933/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> in the 3rd sentence of the fourth paragraph of the introductory section, it says, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while not saying about any of the statements and not even posting a source to back it up.  Something that is controversial is an opinion.  If you disagree with something, it is controversial.  This is also done with the Wikipedia article on [[Stephen Miller]]<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20170927002353/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)</ref> in the third paragraph (one sentence) of the introductory sentence as it says "Miller has on multiple occasions made false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy.", but at least they actually posted 3 sources.

#The Wikipedia article on [[Donald Trump]],<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20170927001933/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> in the 3rd sentence of the fourth paragraph of the introductory section, it says, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while not saying about any of the statements and not even posting a source to back it up.  Something that is controversial is an opinion.  If you disagree with something, it is controversial.  This is also done with the Wikipedia article on [[Stephen Miller]]<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20170927002353/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)</ref> in the third paragraph (one sentence) of the introductory sentence as it says "Miller has on multiple occasions made false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy.", but at least they actually posted 3 sources.

#In July 2018, Wikipedia added [[Ron Paul]] and [[Steve King]] – prominent conservatives – on its list of "American White Supremacists."<ref>Nash, Charlie (July 25, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/25/wikipedia-puts-ron-paul-rep-steve-king-on-list-of-white-supremacists/ Wikipedia Puts Ron Paul, Rep. Steve King on List of ‘White Supremacists’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 25, 2018.</ref>

#In July 2018, Wikipedia added [[Ron Paul]] and [[Steve King]] – prominent conservatives – on its list of "American White Supremacists."<ref>Nash, Charlie (July 25, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/25/wikipedia-puts-ron-paul-rep-steve-king-on-list-of-white-supremacists/ Wikipedia Puts Ron Paul, Rep. Steve King on List of ‘White Supremacists’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 25, 2018.</ref>