Changes

# Progressivism: List of notable current/former progressives in US Congress:<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States]</ref>  Year-long edit war trying to keep well-known and self-admitted progressives Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters on this list. An editor with a history of left-wing neutral-point-of-view complaints is using every excuse to keep these three names off of the list. This liberal gatekeeper was first complaining about a lack of citations, but after citations were provided of Obama and Clinton in their own words describing *themselves* as progressives, the liberal editor is now trying to argue that "just because they say they are progressives doesn't mean they are", or that "They aren't current members of the Progressive caucus, thus they can't be progressives".  This edit war has gone on for over a year, and is now working its way through moderation - likely via liberal moderators. See Wikipedia Progressivism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressivism#United_States_section_-_list_of_Progressives_in_Congress Talk Page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Progressivism:_2.6_United_States:_List_of_progressive_Congress_members_discussion Dispute Resolution Discussion]

# Progressivism: List of notable current/former progressives in US Congress:<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States]</ref>  Year-long edit war trying to keep well-known and self-admitted progressives Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters on this list. An editor with a history of left-wing neutral-point-of-view complaints is using every excuse to keep these three names off of the list. This liberal gatekeeper was first complaining about a lack of citations, but after citations were provided of Obama and Clinton in their own words describing *themselves* as progressives, the liberal editor is now trying to argue that "just because they say they are progressives doesn't mean they are", or that "They aren't current members of the Progressive caucus, thus they can't be progressives".  This edit war has gone on for over a year, and is now working its way through moderation - likely via liberal moderators. See Wikipedia Progressivism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressivism#United_States_section_-_list_of_Progressives_in_Congress Talk Page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Progressivism:_2.6_United_States:_List_of_progressive_Congress_members_discussion Dispute Resolution Discussion]

# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the liberal John Edwards,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the liberal New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>  

# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the liberal John Edwards,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the liberal New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>  

# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a liberal advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term liberal in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a liberal advocacy group,<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term liberal in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>

# On August 26, 2016, the UK Chapter of Wikimedia is conducting an edit session at the  National Liberal Club "to get better, more in-depth coverage of liberal issues and liberal history in the online encyclopaedia, updating and expanding articles."  No similar edit session has been scheduled for conservative issues or conservative history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.libdemvoice.org/wikipedia-editathon-on-liberal-history-51459.html|title=Wikipedia “edit-a-thon” on Liberal History|accessdate=August 10, 2016}}</ref>

# On August 26, 2016, the UK Chapter of Wikimedia is conducting an edit session at the  National Liberal Club "to get better, more in-depth coverage of liberal issues and liberal history in the online encyclopaedia, updating and expanding articles."  No similar edit session has been scheduled for conservative issues or conservative history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.libdemvoice.org/wikipedia-editathon-on-liberal-history-51459.html|title=Wikipedia “edit-a-thon” on Liberal History|accessdate=August 10, 2016}}</ref>

# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>

# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>