Changes

'''Bias in Wikipedia''' is a danger for a free society. This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia, nicknamed "Woke"-ipedia, website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact, the website represents the views of its most strident and persistent, and that iluenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

'''Bias in Wikipedia''' is a danger for a free society. This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia, nicknamed "Woke"-ipedia, website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact, the website represents the views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, liberal editors.  On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is [a] loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

 

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

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

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

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sou

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

 

[[File:Jimbo.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]

[[File:Jimbo.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle HOW THE LEFT CONQUERED WIKIPEDIA, PART 1]</ref>   

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle HOW THE LEFT CONQUERED WIKIPEDIA, PART 1]</ref>   

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of Internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article titled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wndgraphy trafficker", he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of Internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article titled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia site.<ref name="wnd.com"/>  In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>  Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker", he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

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

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

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==

Below is a growing list of vided into sublists based on subject matter.  Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview.  (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)

Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was the leading founder of Wikipedia.  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com"/> Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter.  Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview.  (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)

==Examples of Bias ==

==Examples of Bias ==

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]

[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]

[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]

#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref>ize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."

#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>

#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...&nbsp;the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissively began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."

# [[Wikipedia]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===

===Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police===

====Antifa====

====Antifa====

Wikipedia is very sympathetiifa, saying that they are "seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other far-right extremists." Wikipedia said the lootings in the cities and the murders of black children didn't link to Antifa, even though it obviously did. That is a lie by Wikipedia. Ats" are mentioned hundreds of times in Wikipedia's article about Antifa, but the word "Left-wing extremists" aren't even mentioned at all.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)</ref> Wikipedia also said that right-wing extremists are fanning the flames, and that right-wing politicians such as [[Donald Trump]] and [[William Barr]] are just lying about it, but the "pro-democracy protesters", that is, Antifa, is being treated cruelly by brutal police.

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

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

====Black Lives Matter====

May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>

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

 

 

#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>  The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>

# Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

# Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

#  Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".

#  Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".

# Arguments for atheism ardia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref>  In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]].  Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref>  In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]].  Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====

====Islam====

===Bestiality/zoophilia===

===Bestiality/zoophilia===

[[File:Sheep.jpg|righpedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia".  No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[https://en.wikiped2}}</ref>

[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]

 

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia".  No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

===Conservative Banning===

===Conservative Banning===

Wikipedia is known for threatening to block conservatives who edit their liberally-biased articles. Usually, with a warning.

Wikipedia is known for threatening to block conservatives who edit their liberally-biased articles. Usually, with a warning.

# Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

# Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>

# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC.  This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.papedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC.  This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Speciahp?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

===Conservative personalities and politicians===

===Conservative personalities and politicians===

#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]}

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

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

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

# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activisapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos.  But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Speciats have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>

# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref>  However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref>  However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

There is an anti-Israel gang, for years, fighting source, deciding what is a RS, push to ban users, some working in cooporation with a long time infamous radical anti-Israel administrator.<ref>https://www.theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel . [https://freebeacon.com/issues/wikipedias-anti-israel-editors-unmasked/ Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Editors Unmasked] - Free Beacon, Nov 20, 2019</ref>

There is an anti-Israel gang, for years, fighting source, deciding what is a RS, push to ban users, some working in cooporation with a long time infamous radical anti-Israel administrator.<ref>https://www.theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel . [https://freebeacon.com/issues/wikipedias-anti-israel-editors-unmasked/ Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Editors Unmasked] - Free Beacon, Nov 20, 2019</ref>

There has been a consistent long time Anti-Israeli subversion,<ref>[https://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48964486.html Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia], May 17, 2008</ref> suppression,<ref>htapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

There has been a consistent long time Anti-Israeli subversion,<ref>[https://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48964486.html Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia], May 17, 2008</ref> suppression,<ref>https://wikibias.wordpress.com/</ref> <ref>[http://www.think-israel.org/wikipedia.arabismracism.html PAN-ARABISM'S RACISM AND WIKIPEDIA BIAS] compiled and edited by Bernice Lipkin</ref> biases, inaccuracies, article by article.<ref>https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9628</ref>

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Speciatps://wikibias.wordpress.com/</ref> <ref>[http://www.think-israel.org/wikipedia.arabismracism.html PAN-ARABISM'S RACISM AND WIKIPEDIA BIAS] compiled and edited by Bernice Lipkin</ref> biases, inaccuracies, article by article.<ref>https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9628</ref>

Project Wiki exposed how Wikipedia is breeding Armies of Anti-Semites.<ref>[https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/ Project Wiki Exposes How Wikipedia Is Breeding Armies of Anti-Semites], David Israel, JP, January 1, 2021</ref>

Project Wiki exposed how Wikipedia is breeding Armies of Anti-Semites.<ref>[https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/ Project Wiki Exposes How Wikipedia Is Breeding Armies of Anti-Semites], David Israel, JP, January 1, 2021</ref>

===Coronavirus===

===Coronavirus===

Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will holapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.

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

#  For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Speciahe discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") However, in China's coronavirus article, they say that there was no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

===Trump Family Separation Policy===