Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2019-03-07T00:01:44Z

Joewash19: Fixed minor grammatical error

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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''. [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>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>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>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>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>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=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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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:
#* 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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>[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>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]] [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=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>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]] [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>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>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>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=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=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.
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]],<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref> in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
#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>
#In 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 .
#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>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2019-03-06T23:58:48Z

Joewash19: Took out badly written old edits created by me

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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''. [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>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>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>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>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>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=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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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:
#* 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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>[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>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]] [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=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>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]] [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>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>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>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=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=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.
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]],<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref> in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
#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 .
#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>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2019-02-08T02:38:52Z

Joewash19: Badly worded amateur description removed

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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''. [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>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>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>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>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>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=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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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:
#* 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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>[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>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]] [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=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>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]] [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>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>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>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=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=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.
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]],<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref> in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
#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>
#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>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-12-06T05:16:14Z

Joewash19:

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]],<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref> in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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>
#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.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-09-27T00:25:35Z

Joewash19: added Stephen Miller and Trump

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]],<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref> in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
#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>
#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.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-08-05T17:39:06Z

Joewash19: Donald Trump FBI investigation bias added

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-07-25T16:17:35Z

Joewash19: added milo

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref name=trump>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=787269818</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, this summary sentence has been flagged as "disputed – discuss": "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref name=trump/> The article then has a section entitled "Russian interference in election" and a cross reference to an article on this topic, but those sections are not similarly flagged. Only users with 500 edits are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while Wikipedia articles on liberal Presidents do not make similar challenges. The article then elaborates, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates. At least four major publications – ''Politico'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', and the ''Los Angeles Times'' – have pointed out lies or falsehoods in his statements during his campaign and after the election." with five footnotes.<ref name=trump/>
# 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.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists

2017-07-25T16:12:34Z

Joewash19:

:''See also: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]''

This list includes many examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to coverage of journalists.
#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref><ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}</ref> So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false—including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>
# Journalist Violet Blue reported on a Wikipedia paid editing scandal for CNET. In response, " Mr. Wales said on his Wikipedia “Talk” page that I’m not a journalist, or credible. Shortly afterward, everything on the Wikipedia page about me citing and documenting my career as a journalist was removed, as were related links on Wikipedia to stories I broke writing for CBS."<ref>http://violetblue.tumblr.com/journalism</ref>
# The Wikipedia page to do with [[David Seaman (American journalist)]] was locked and setup for deletion in December 2016 due to his investigation into [[PizzaGate]], as indicated on the Wikipedia talk page.<ref>[http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/12/youtube-censors-pizzagate-videos-trump-staff-fired-following-pizzagate-tweet/18427/ YouTube Censors PizzaGate Videos; Trump Staff Fired Following PizzaGate Tweet]</ref> Before his page was deleted, some editors such as User:Simtropolitan suggested using more reliable sources, writing, ''“if nothing else his very public firing from the Huffington Post at the height of the election warrants keeping this, but only as a stub if sources like ZeroHedge keep being cited. Reliable sources do exist, he has worked with networks that are not [fringe sources], don’t be a reactionary and cite blogs that have “Tyler Durden” as their author. Even if you want to make a villain out of him for Pizzagate, people much less relevant to current events like David Icke have long, well-cited articles here. I am not saying that Seaman is the same as Icke, but this is relevant to current events. The article can and should be improved upon however.”'' David Seaman's dismissal from [[Huffington Post]] was also covered by [[Real Clear Politics]], along with receiving coverage from [[The Daily Caller]]. However, even those weren’t considered reliable enough for the Wikipedia censors.<ref>[http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/12/wikipedia-deletes-david-seaman-entry-following-his-pizzagate-coverage/19050/ Wikipedia Deletes David Seaman Entry Following His PizzaGate Coverage]</ref>
# Various attempts have been made by Wikipedia users to point out the liberal bias of online fact checker [[Snopes]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes.com&oldid=755626326</ref> User:Boab added a sentence to the Accuracy section of the article suggesting that Snopes has been accused of liberal bias. In support of this claim, User:Boab provided the following 2016 references:<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/</ref><ref>https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/</ref><ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262720/snopes-attack-front-page-shows-how-incompetent-it-daniel-greenfield</ref><ref>http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/20/snopes-vs-daily-caller-fact-checker-hit-as-hillary-backer/</ref><ref>https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/</ref><ref>http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/</ref><ref>[http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/snopes-got-snoped/60681 Snopes Got Snoped]</ref>
::Despite the large number of references provided (some of which were from non-conservative sources), a cabal of administrators on the site insisted that none of them were valid and/or that they had to be deleted from the page. Although User:Boab also provided the list of references under the talk page of the site, this list of references was archived away into obscurity due to complaints by User:Dbrodbeck <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbrodbeck</ref> that the references were cluttering up the talk page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=755716965 (See discussion #27: "Boab: InfoWars is reliable, Snopes isn't")</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about Mike Cernovich<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170725160658/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich</ref>, in the introductory paragraph introductory sentence, it says "Mike Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is an American alt-right[6] social media personality, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He describes himself as "new right"[7] and an "American nationalist."[8]". However, Mike Cernovich denies the fact that he is alt right<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/mike-cernovich-bio-who.html</ref><ref>https://twitter.com/bakedalaska/status/813574480588992514</ref>.
==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

User talk:Joewash19

2017-06-25T00:46:19Z

Joewash19: thank you

{{welcome|Joewash19}}[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:30, 24 June 2017 (EDT)
I think it is great that you want to add items to our Examples of Bias in Wikipedia series, but I wish to point out two items: First, Wikipedia, like Conservapedia and many other encyclopedias, starts articles with a lede or introductory section. This is a concise summary of the rest of the article. If you want to criticize a Wikipedia article for bias, you should consider the entire article rather than just one sentence out of the lede. While an article may be criticized for giving excess importance to a fact in the lede, even Conservapedia covers an idea in just one sentence or phrase in the introduction subject to a full length expansion in the body of the article. Second, when citing to a Wikipedia article, please click on the "permanent link" in the left column to capture the full URL of that version of the article. Some Wikipedia editors read Conservapedia on a regular basis and make changes quickly in response to our criticism. By capturing the full link, you will let the reader know which version of the article is being discussed. Many thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:30, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

Thank You

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-06-24T22:58:28Z

Joewash19: edit buzfeed

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

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2017-06-24T22:54:09Z

Joewash19: Buzzfeed added

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

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-06-24T13:42:44Z

Joewash19: grammatical fix

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a disputed claim with no proof and not even any citation, written as completely true that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> The quote in the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." has been flagged as disputed – discuss. Obviously, as you would expect, only certain users with certain editing privilege are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while this is not the case with any Democrat President in any of the Wikipedia articles.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-06-24T13:36:13Z

Joewash19: Donald Trump add on

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a disputed claim with no proof and not even any citation, written as completely true that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> The quote in the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." has been flagged as disputed – discuss. Obviously as you would expect, only certain users with certain editing privilege are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States. Also in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a claim that says "many of his public statements were controversial or false" while this is not the case with any Democrat President in any of the Wikipedia articles.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-06-24T13:33:16Z

Joewash19: Donald Trump edit

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a disputed claim with no proof and not even any citation, written as completely true that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> The quote in the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." has been flagged as disputed – discuss. Obviously as you would expect, only certain users with certain editing privilege are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-06-24T13:29:00Z

Joewash19: fixing the Donald Trump part of the article

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a disputed claim with no proof and not even any citation, written as completely true that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> Obviously as you would expect, only certain users with certain editing privilege are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

2017-06-24T13:27:49Z

Joewash19: Add in a leftist wikipedia bias on Donald Trump

[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
[[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:
#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]
# 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]
# 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>
# 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>
#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>
#''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>
# 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>
# 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 [[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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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]] 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>
#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>
#[[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]]'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>
#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>
# 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'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]] 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>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://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>
#* 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>
# 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>
# 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]] 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'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 article about the late Senator John Tower 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 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 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>
#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>
# 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>
#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.
# [[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]]'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]] 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>http://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>
# 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>
# 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>
# 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 of [[Alex Jones]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=755574598</ref> describes the InfoWars host as follows (as of December 18, 2016): "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, Wikipedia has categorically labeled InfoWars as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia is met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights</ref> and User:Ian.thomson<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson</ref>) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boab&oldid=755441776</ref>
# In the Wikipedia article about President [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump<ref>, in the final sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory section in the article on President Donald Trump, there is a disputed claim with no proof and not even any citation, written as completely true that says "The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy.".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump<ref> Obviously as you would expect, only certain users with certain editing privilege are allowed to edit the page of the President of the United States.
== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]