Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay: Benefits of homeschooling

2021-07-30T22:40:15Z

MamiAngel:

The benefits of homeschooling are numerous. With woke indoctrination in schools, parents are pulling children out of school and homeschooling them. They report happier lives and more independent, mature children. Conservapedia has many homeschooling courses for conservatives (Christian)!

==Benefits for Children==
Unlike public school children, which tend to be very woke and aggressive, homeschooled children are agreeable and independent. They are taught to resist the mainstream evils of society, and learn self-reliance and independent thinking. They are very mature and have an almost adult understanding of life and God, which protects from manipulation.

Homeschooled children are much more loving to their parents because they have been spent with them during formative years. Many parents of public school kids receive the shock of their innocent, adorable child becoming a woke critical atheist, but homeschoolers don't have that problem. Families stay united, and the importance of family is put into homeschooled children.

Christian homeschooled children realize who Jesus really is, and how the Bible is His story. They become patriotic close to God and protected from worldly influence. Homeschoolers have excellent Bible reading. Homeschoolers are shielded from the unhealthy school culture like sex, homosexuality, and atheism, which leads to pessimism, depression and suicide.

Homeschoolers also have great conservative and Christian values. Public school children usually make fun of homeschoolers but unlike their peers, homeschoolers don't become obsessed over revenge, and learn to bear persecution without complaint, which is needed for Christ-likeness.

==Benefits for Parents==
Parents have complete control over their children and what they're learning. The family becomes very close, and homeschoolers usually spend all their time with the parents. They learn to work with them, prepare with them, help them, and love them more than anyone else (except God).

Parents also preserve their parenting rights over their children, which liberals want to take away because of us "neurotic" parents. Homeschooling parents report happier lives and more love with their children.

==Resources==
To get started homeschooling, visit the [https://hslda.org/ Home School Legal Defense Association]. You can also visit [https://www.flvs.net/learnfromhome FLVS], an amazing online school that avoids woke indoctrination. [https://www.christianbook.com/page/homeschool?kw=christian%20based%20homeschool%20curriculum&mt=e&dv=c&event=PPCSRC&p=1020037&msclkid=6637a80056a01a94fbaac904293e608b&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Homeschool&utm_term=christian%20based%20homeschool%20curriculum&utm_content=homeschool-general ChristianBook Store ] has Christian homeschooling curriculums.

Essay: Benefits of homeschooling

2021-07-30T22:35:18Z

MamiAngel: Created page with "==Benefits for Children== Unlike public school children, which tend to be very woke and aggressive, homeschooled children are agreeable and independent. They are taught to res..."

==Benefits for Children==
Unlike public school children, which tend to be very woke and aggressive, homeschooled children are agreeable and independent. They are taught to resist the mainstream evils of society, and learn self-reliance and independent thinking. They are very mature and have an almost adult understanding of life and God, which protects from manipulation.

Homeschooled children are much more loving to their parents because they have been spent with them during formative years. Many parents of public school kids receive the shock of their innocent, adorable child becoming a woke critical atheist, but homeschoolers don't have that problem. Families stay united, and the importance of family is put into homeschooled children.

Christian homeschooled children realize who Jesus really is, and how the Bible is His story. They become patriotic close to God and protected from worldly influence. Homeschoolers have excellent Bible reading. Homeschoolers are shielded from the unhealthy school culture like sex, homosexuality, and atheism, which leads to pessimism, depression and suicide.

Homeschoolers also have great conservative and Christian values. Public school children usually make fun of homeschoolers but unlike their peers, homeschoolers don't become obsessed over revenge, and learn to bear persecution without complaint, which is needed for Christ-likeness.

==Benefits for Parents==
Parents have complete control over their children and what they're learning. The family becomes very close, and homeschoolers usually spend all their time with the parents. They learn to work with them, prepare with them, help them, and love them more than anyone else (except God).

Parents also preserve their parenting rights over their children, which liberals want to take away because of us "neurotic" parents. Homeschooling parents report happier lives and more love with their children.

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-07-29T15:59:04Z

MamiAngel:

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

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

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

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

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle HOW THE LEFT CONQUERED WIKIPEDIA, PART 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

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

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

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

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

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

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ... the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissively began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

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

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

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====Anti-Christianity====
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]
#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>
===Conservative Banning===
Wikipedia is known for threatening to block conservatives who edit their liberally-biased articles. Usually, with a warning.
Conservatives repairing this bias are labelled as disruptive editing.

===Conservapedia smears===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

===Conservative personalities and politicians===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative 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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

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

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

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

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

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

=== Dictators ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Dictators]]

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

===Gender bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

===Global warming===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]] functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</ref>

===Homosexuality===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female transexuals are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===Internet policies===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against Internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

===Liberal politicians===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

===Obama===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

===Public policy in the United States===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===Science and evolution===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

===Sports===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sports]]

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</ref>

===Conspiracy theories===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama ''The Path to 9/11'', the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama ''Blocking the Path to 9/11'' [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near future. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left-wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologists [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

===Nazism, Socialism, Communism===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's main article on [[Communism]] does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the Communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a Communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a Communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on far-Left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-Left promotes "equality", while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-Left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives of maintaining a social hierarchy and being "racist" and being "supremacists" that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-Left. It promotes the far-Left as bringing "equality" while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===General/Uncategorized===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#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=https://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>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys]

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasted site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda.’<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasts site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda’] Brian Flood , Fox News, July 16, 2021.

'You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.'

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger continued his criticism this week of the online encyclopedia that he helped create, citing the page on President Biden as an example of its leftist bias</ref>
He said: 'The site only uses lefty sources and blocks reporting by major outlets.'
<ref>Tucker Carleson Tonight, Foxnews, July 22, 2021</ref>

Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability". Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this, because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when, in fact, it has never been played "at the Olympics". Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the Web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the Internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on Flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source, even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Encyclopædia Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers, instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept, because someone with a Gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyright actually belonged to Time, Inc., but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the site and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board, and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind [[Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands-off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia Governor Impeachment Cover-Up]]
*[[Hearsay society]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]—Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky|cult leader]] behind the [[radical left]]'s talking points.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing the content being posted and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub-article, if possible.

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-07-28T22:36:32Z

MamiAngel:

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

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

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

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

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle HOW THE LEFT CONQUERED WIKIPEDIA, PART 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

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

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

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

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

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

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ... the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissively began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

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

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

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====Anti-Christianity====
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]
#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>
==Conservative Banning==
Wikipedia is known for threatening to block conservatives who edit their liberally-biased articles. Usually, with this warning:
[[File:Https://www.rollonfriday.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/GK-screen-2.jpg|thumbnail|Example of conservative banning in wikipedia]]
Conservatives repairing this bias are labelled as disruptive editing.

===Conservapedia smears===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

===Conservative personalities and politicians===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative 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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

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

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

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

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

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

=== Dictators ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Dictators]]

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

===Gender bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

===Global warming===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]] functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</ref>

===Homosexuality===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female transexuals are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===Internet policies===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against Internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

===Liberal politicians===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

===Obama===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

===Public policy in the United States===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===Science and evolution===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

===Sports===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sports]]

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</ref>

===Conspiracy theories===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama ''The Path to 9/11'', the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama ''Blocking the Path to 9/11'' [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near future. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left-wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologists [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

===Nazism, Socialism, Communism===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's main article on [[Communism]] does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the Communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a Communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a Communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on far-Left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-Left promotes "equality", while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-Left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives of maintaining a social hierarchy and being "racist" and being "supremacists" that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-Left. It promotes the far-Left as bringing "equality" while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===General/Uncategorized===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#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=https://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>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys]

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasted site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda.’<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasts site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda’] Brian Flood , Fox News, July 16, 2021.

'You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.'

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger continued his criticism this week of the online encyclopedia that he helped create, citing the page on President Biden as an example of its leftist bias</ref>
He said: 'The site only uses lefty sources and blocks reporting by major outlets.'
<ref>Tucker Carleson Tonight, Foxnews, July 22, 2021</ref>

Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability". Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this, because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when, in fact, it has never been played "at the Olympics". Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the Web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the Internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on Flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source, even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Encyclopædia Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers, instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept, because someone with a Gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyright actually belonged to Time, Inc., but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the site and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board, and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind [[Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands-off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia Governor Impeachment Cover-Up]]
*[[Hearsay society]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]—Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky|cult leader]] behind the [[radical left]]'s talking points.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing the content being posted and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub-article, if possible.

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2021-07-28T22:34:45Z

MamiAngel:

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

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

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

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

[[File:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]]]
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Ann Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref name="frontpagemag.com">[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle HOW THE LEFT CONQUERED WIKIPEDIA, PART 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

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

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

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

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref><ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-no-longer-exists-favors-leftism Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism]</ref>

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

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

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[File:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]
#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed way more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ... the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissively began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] falsely claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

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

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

====Defund the Police====
Wikipedia also praises the "Defund the Police" slogan by saying ""Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety, democracy, and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police</ref> The reality is, that criminals take advantage, and the cities get looted even more by radical liberal left-wing mobs, and that Trump gets blamed for it by [[Joe Biden]]. Wikipedia also says that policing is like promoting racism and defunding the police may help end police brutality and racism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Racism</ref>

===Religion===
[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]
====Anti-Christianity====
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]
#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
# Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_H._Christ&oldid=174239815</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref name="en.wikipedia.org">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref name="en.wikipedia.org"/> Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].

====Islam====
{{See also|Rape jihad}}
* An editor included the June 2016 Orlando shootings on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks List of Islamic terrorist attacks] and an edit war ensued.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/|title=Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List|work=breitbart.com|date=June 30, 2016|accessdate=July 8, 2016}}</ref>
* ACT! for America is classified under Wikipedia's section on "Islamophobia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT!_for_America&oldid=860017411</ref>

===Bestiality/zoophilia===
[[File:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Domestic sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoophilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>
==Conservative Banning==
Wikipedia is known for threatening to block conservatives who edit their liberally-biased articles. Usually, with this warning:
<gallery>
https://www.rollonfriday.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/GK-screen-2.jpg|Example of wikipedia Bias
</gallery>
Conservatives repairing this bias are labelled as disruptive editing.

===Conservapedia smears===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on Wikipedia.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

===Conservative personalities and politicians===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative 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, most likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won, and Wikipedia's liberal-biased editors do not want to give her credit for that. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] activists have had a hissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Kern&type=revision&diff=405321478&oldid=400257198</ref>
# In December of 2019 Wikipedia deleted its page for the conservative [[Independent American Party]] claiming "lack of notability".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_American_Party</ref> However, pages for several Communist, Socialist, Neo-Nazi, and other very small political parties with very few members remain and are regularly maintained despite them having virtually no impact in the American political sphere.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</ref>

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

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

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

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

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>
# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>
# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that. <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

=== Dictators ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Dictators]]

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>
# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all admits that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>
# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===Ethnic and racial bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians, and blacks against discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, yet, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===
Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say that it is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

===Gender bias===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade that seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed criticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

===Global warming===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]] functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</ref>

===Homosexuality===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female transexuals are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.
#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===
Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists that much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larges than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===Internet policies===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against Internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>
#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered "factually correct" and the "most reliable"]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which are spreading or promoting it. <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===
Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowing Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#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 Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama 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>[https://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 [https://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=https://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=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.
#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=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

===Liberal politicians===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to find it.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>
# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

===Mathematics and engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

===Musicians and actors===
# A Wikipedia editor by the pseudonym "Ronz" called [[Nofel Izz]]'s singing and acting a "hobby", despite his work being featured in [[Bollywood]] films.<ref name="Izz2014">{{cite web |last=Izz|first=Nofel |title=The Dark Side of Wikipedia |url=https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ |date=13 August 2014}}</ref> The same user removed citations from the article that met Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.<ref name="Izz2014"/>

===Obama===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."
# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===
Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like that the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the results are that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biassed content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===
# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornography movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>
# Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

===Public policy in the United States===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

# Wikipedia also clearly and openly sympathizes with [[RINO]] politicians by saying "Republican In Name Only is a pejorative and a disrespectful term used primarily by conservative members of the United States Republican Party to describe Republicans whose political stances are deemed insufficiently conservative."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only</ref>

===Russia and China===
Russia's article is heavily criticized along with the Republicans for "helping" them, but China's article is praised for "reforms that made China the 2nd largest economy", and has absolutely no mention of Democrats, who are actually helping them.

====Election interference====
In Donald Trump's article, Russia is mentioned hundreds of times<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref> but in Joe Biden's article, there is only one mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Joe_Biden</ref>, which is just sympathy to China, because Biden criticized Trump's China trade war.

===Science and evolution===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

===Sports===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sports]]

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biassed that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</ref>

===Conspiracy theories===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama ''The Path to 9/11'', the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama ''Blocking the Path to 9/11'' [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near future. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left-wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologists [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.
#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.
::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."
::On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

===Nazism, Socialism, Communism===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's main article on [[Communism]] does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of the Communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]], a dictatorship that used to be part of the [[Soviet Union]], paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew Communism in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the Communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a Communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a Communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on far-Left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-Left promotes "equality", while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-Left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like the Black Panthers. Conversely, its "far-Right" politics articles accuse conservatives of maintaining a social hierarchy and being "racist" and being "supremacists" that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-Left. It promotes the far-Left as bringing "equality" while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like the [[New Black Panthers]] for example.
# Wikipedia's article on the National Socialist German Workers' Party lists its political position as "Far-Right",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party</ref> however its page on the Communist Party of China does not even refer to the party as "Far-Left".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China</ref>

== Old User Bias ==
Many old users (2004 - 2009) get unfair treatment against newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==
===Vaccines===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].
#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>
#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===
Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, who says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizing with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

===General/Uncategorized===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#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=https://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>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once 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=https://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 omission of the terms. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the liberals’ insurrection. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys]

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasted site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda.’<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger blasts site for left-wing bias: ‘The word for it is propaganda’] Brian Flood , Fox News, July 16, 2021.

'You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.'

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger continued his criticism this week of the online encyclopedia that he helped create, citing the page on President Biden as an example of its leftist bias</ref>
He said: 'The site only uses lefty sources and blocks reporting by major outlets.'
<ref>Tucker Carleson Tonight, Foxnews, July 22, 2021</ref>

Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools, and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia articles. This prevents knowledgeable people who work for companies from editing articles relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability". Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this, because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when, in fact, it has never been played "at the Olympics". Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the Web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the Internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on Flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data were automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source, even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Encyclopædia Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers, instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept, because someone with a Gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyright actually belonged to Time, Inc., but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the site and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundamentally, the owner of a site is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board, and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind [[Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands-off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia Governor Impeachment Cover-Up]]
*[[Hearsay society]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]—Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky|cult leader]] behind the [[radical left]]'s talking points.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]
*[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/ Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments] by Charlie Nash, ''Breitbart News'', July 5, 2016.

*[https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/wikipedias-israel-problem-ari-lieberman/ WIKIPEDIA'S ISRAEL PROBLEM. Anti-Semitism in Internet encyclopedia form. Tue Aug 25, 2015. Ari Lieberman].
*[http://184.106.49.50/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7744 Discover The Network: Wikipedia].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing the content being posted and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub-article, if possible.

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Job

2021-07-27T16:18:35Z

MamiAngel:

''For the state of being employed, see [[Employment]]''

'''Job''' is a book found in the Hebrew [[Tanakh]] and the [[Old Testament]] of the Christian [[Bible]] that tells the story of a man named Job. It has been traditionally and historically considered one of the oldest books in the Bible, though recent scholarship has moved the date of composition to the 4th century B.C.<ref name=livius>[http://www.livius.org/be-bm/bible/bible_chronology.html Chronology of Jewish literature]</ref>

== The Story ==

Job was a righteous man who feared [[God]] and whom God had blessed greatly. God was pleased with Job and spoke highly of him in front of the host of [[angels]], but [[Satan]] challenged that Job was not deserving of God's accolades and was only righteous because God put a hedge around him so that his life went well, but Job would quickly turn on God in time of hardship. God removed his hedge of protection and allowed Satan to put his accusation to the test. A series of 4 servants came to Job one after the other telling him of disasters that had befallen his household. When they were done Job knew he had lost his children, flocks, and servants, everything but his own health (which God had forbidden Satan to touch) and his wife. Filled with grief, Job still reacted with righteousness and fell to the ground to worship. "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:21&version=NABRE Job 1:21]</ref>

At another gathering of the host of angels, God commended Job and his righteousness, but Satan again accused him saying that if his own body was touched, then he would curse God to his face. The Lord allowed Satan to act upon his accusation, but commanded the accuser to spare Job's life. Job was afflicted with painful itching sores ("sore [[boils]]" <ref>[http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/boils-and-carbuncles/basics/definition/con-20024235 Mayo Clinic.org: Boils and Carbuncles.] [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001474.htm MedlinePlus Trusted Health Information for You. A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. From the National Institutes of Health. Boils.] (nlm.nih.gov)</ref>) from the soles of his feet to the top of his head, which he scratched constantly with a piece of broken pottery. Job's wife told Job to "Curse God and Die",<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%202:9&version=NABRE Job 2:9]</ref> apparently believing that God would immediately punish blasphemy with death, and that, by this indirect means of committing suicide, death would mercifully end his suffering, but Job refused. (See [http://www.suicide.org/suicide-by-cop.html suicide by cop].)

Three of Job's friends, Eliphaz from Teman, Bildad from Shuh, and Zophar from Naamath, all from [[Edom]], came to talk to him, and in a three-fold cycle of long discourses that Job answered, each of them addressing him three times one by one, they implored to him to admit his sins had caused this. Job could not understand what was happening, but he knew it was not due to his sin. He maintained he had been righteous, and heartily desired, even demanded, that God would let him know why all this had happened. Then Elihu, a younger man, having listened to them until Job by his replies had silenced them, and impelled by "the breath of the Almighty", then declares that both Job and his three friends are not right to find fault with God and attribute their limited understandings of justice to the understanding of God; and he concludes his discourse against them by saying of God (37:24b), "''he does not regard any who are wise in their own conceit''" (RSVCE)–the King James Version says, "he respecteth not any ''that are'' wise of heart".<ref>Job 32–37</ref> Finally, at this point, God himself came down in a storm ([[theophany]]) to talk to Job. Instead of answering Job's challenges to explain his actions, He asked Job questions such as "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions?".<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2038:4-5&version=NABRE Job 38:4-5]</ref> Like [[Ezekiel (prophet)|Ezekiel]],<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%201&version=NABRE Ezekiel chapter 1]</ref> Job actually saw God with his own eyes speaking out of the whirlwind of the storm,<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2042:5-6&version=NABRE Job 42:5-6]</ref> and realized he had no answers for God and could not begin to question things he could not understand.

God then tells Job's three friends that he is enraged with them for their false theology about him, unlike that of Job, and He commands them to give to Job seven bulls and seven rams and offer up for their offense against Him a burnt offering of reparation, and then the prayer of Job in [[intercession]] for them will persuade God to not deal with them according to their folly.<ref>Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/james/5-16.htm James 5:16] –''multiple translations''.</ref>

And God restored, consoled and blessed Job all of his remaining years, giving him twice the flocks he had before, and 7 new sons and 3 new daughters (considered among the most beautiful in the area) to match the number he had before (though it meant Job's wife would have 10 more pregnancies, possibly her "punishment" for her bad advice to Job).

== Historical setting ==

The author of the book of Job is not known; evidence shows it was composed some time between the 7th and 5th centuries B.C.<ref name=livius/><ref>New American Bible, Book of Job, prefatory notes. [http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Job&ch Catholic commentary on Job], United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (usccb.org)</ref> Some scholars see the story itself as very ancient, even if it was written down in a composition centuries after the events occurred.<ref>[http://truthbehindreality.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-biblical-book-of-job-%E2%80%93-is-it-old-or-real-old/ Truth Behind Reality: The Biblical Book of Job – Is It Old or Real Old? Posted on March 29, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8693-job-the-book-of Jewish Encyclopedia: The Book of Job]</ref> Job is mentioned as well in Ezekiel 14:14 c. 600 BC.

*"''There was a man in the [http://biblehub.com/topical/u/uz.htm land of Uz]...''" The land of Uz is [[Edom]]. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lamentations%204:21&version=KJV Lamentations 4:21]

*The [[theophany]] of Job 37:2–38:2; 42:5-6 is almost identical to the theophany of Ezekiel 1:4, possibly indicating the time of the Exile 6th–5th centuries B.C. "a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it", "Hearken to the thunder of his voice and the rumbling that comes from his mouth", "Out of the north comes golden splendor; God is clothed with terrible majesty" and "The LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind". This is highly speculative. Similarity of phenomena demonstrates nothing about the period of time.

*The only historical reference is to the [http://biblehub.com/topical/s/sabeans.htm Sabeans/Sabaeans] and the Chaldeans (a word denoting the Babylonians according to Habakkuk 1:6-11, since he was not referring to the Assyrians). Job 1:13-17. Sabaean rulers are mentioned in Assyrian annals of the late 8th and early 7th centuries B.C. (although some scholars date Sabaean inscriptions to about the 6th century B.C.) <ref>[http://phoenicia.org/sabaeans.html Encyclopedia Phoenicia: Sabaeans] (phoenicia.org) [https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31568/history-of-Arabia/45967/Sabaeans Encyclopaedia Britannica: Sabaeans.]</ref>

*The Bible does not say that '''Job <big>אִיוב</big>''' and '''Jobab <big>יובב</big>''', the ancient ruler of Edom, are different persons, it does not say they are the same. Genesis 36:33-34. Evidence one way or the other cannot be drawn from the letter of the text of the Bible alone. "This man was the greatest of all the people of the east." Job 1:3. This indicates that Job was a powerful middle-eastern chieftain or prince over vast herds and pasturelands whom only an army would dare attack with impunity. Compare the treaty that King Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his army made with Abraham, and that later, accompanied by his royal advisor Ahuzzath and Phicol, Abimelech made with Isaac. Both Abraham and Isaac are said to have been mighty princes. Genesis 21:22-32; 23:5-6; 26:12-14. The Sabaeans who dared to attack Job were a significant power in the east only in the 7th–6th centuries B.C., around the time period of the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews.<ref name=gen>"The Bible is not completely self-interpreting. We can gain much from thorough reading of the text itself, and frequently from comparison of various passages in the Bible. Still, we often require aid from outside the Bible itself." Hyatt, ''The Heritage of Biblical Faith '', p. 45.</ref><ref name=Holman>{{Cite book | title = Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary | publisher = Holman Bible Publishers | isbn = 978-0-8054-2836-0 | editors = General Editors: Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England. Associate Editors: Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen. General Editor, ''Holman Bible Dictionary'': Trent C. Butler | year = ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' © 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers | location = Nashville, Tennessee}}</ref><ref name=HolmanGeneration>"Generation", Trent C. Butler, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 634–635.</ref><ref name=BibleGenerations>The period of Job cannot reliably be drawn from a calculation of the generations in the Torah. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2015:13-16&version=KJV Genesis 15:13-16] apparently equates 400 years with four generations. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2032:11-13&version=KJV Numbers 32:11-13] may reckon a generation as 60 years; it included people 20 and above giving them 40 more years to die; or a generation may be interpreted as the 40 years of adulthood between ages 20 and 60. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2042:16&version=KJV Job 42:16] states that after his tragedies Job lived 140 years and saw four generations, making a generation about 35 years. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2kings%2010:30&version=KJV 2 Kings 10:30] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2kings%2015:12&version=KJV 2 Kings 15:12] relate God's promise to Jehu that his sons would rule to the fourth generation, apparently meaning four sons: Jehu began ruling about 841 B.C., his first son Jehoahaz about 814 B.C., and in the fourth generation Zechariah of Israel died about 752 B.C.: five generations ruling less than 90 years, the four sons (four generations) ruling about 60 years, a generation averaging fewer than 20 years. The text of [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2049:11&version=KJV Psalms 49:11] (49:12) <big>יב קִרְבָּם בָּתֵּימוֹ, לְעוֹלָם-- מִשְׁכְּנֹתָם, לְדוֹר וָדֹר;
קָרְאוּ בִשְׁמוֹתָם, עֲלֵי אֲדָמוֹת.</big> in the literal Hebrew expression "''generation'' דור ''and generation'' דור " actually means in its most ''literal sense'' "through all generations" or "forever". In [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2010:8&version=KJV Numbers 10:8] "''to your (his, their) generations''" similarly means forever. This is a peculiarly Hebrew [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/idiom idiom.] ''Source''—"Generation", Trent C. Butler, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', p. 634b. In [http://www.eliyah.com/strongs.htm Strong's Concordance], ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'', the sign × (''multiplication'') denotes a rendering in the KJV that results from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew:
:"'''GENERATIONS''' "'''. . .'''
:"Psalm 49:11 and their dwelling places to all '''g.'''......1755.
::::1755. '''דור''' '''dôre,''' ''dore;'' or (shortened) '''דר''' '''dôr,''' ''dore''...<big>×</big> evermore, generation, [n-]ever, posterity."</ref> The Bible speaks of the Sabeans, but this historical fact, the most significant period of their power and influence 7th–6th centuries B.C., cannot be drawn from the letter of the text of the Bible alone. There is archaeologically and historically no evidence of the existence of the Sabaeans as a people predating the 16th century B.C., that is, not before the time of the Exodus from Egypt 1577 B.C. according to a literalist dating of the Bible.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/257415/THE_SABAEAN_INSCRIPTIONS_AT_ADI_KAWEH_EVIDENCE_SUPPORTING_THE_NARRATIVE_OF_THE_SHEBA-MENELIK_CYCLE_OF_THE_KEBRA_NAGAST THE SABAEAN INSCRIPTIONS AT ADI KAWEHEVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE NARRATIVE OF THE SHEBA-MENELIK CYCLE OF THE KEBRA NAGAST] (earliest datings 1400 B.C.)</ref> (See [[Literalist Bible chronology]].)

*Job destroys and brings to nothing the wisdom and understanding of the men of Edom, exactly as promised in the Book of Obadiah (v.8) "on that day, says the LORD". God's wrath is kindled against the visiting wise men for not speaking of God what is right, even though their counsels to Job are represented almost ''verbatim'' in the books of Psalms and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and later in the books of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm Sirach] and [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom]]. They had abused the inspired wisdom sayings that had come from God by applying them wrongly and falsely to an innocent man, according to his outward appearance and his condition, and according to their belief that God will not allow any righteous individual to suffer so terribly. In the canon of the [[Bible#Books of the Bible|Christian Old Testament]] Job is placed first, before Psalms and Proverbs. The Jewish [[Old Testament|Tanakh]] has Psalms and Proverbs before Job, a rabbinical tradition indicating a later composition of the book after the reigns of David and Solomon.

*The [http://biblehub.com/summary/obadiah/1.htm Book of Obadiah] historically appears to belong to the early postexilic period at the end of the 6th century (c. 525–501).<ref name=Obadiah>"Obadiah", Leslie C. Allen, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', p.1205.</ref>
*Among the heads of their fathers' families who came up from Babylonia to Jerusalem with Ezra the priest in the reign of Artaxerxes the king was '''Obadiah''' the son of Jehiel of the sons of Joab. Among those who set their seal to the covenant of obedience to the law written and set down by Ezra was Obadiah (Nehemiah 9). And Obadiah was among the gatekeepers standing guard at the storehouses of the gates of the governor in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua the son of Jozadak the high priest, in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest-scribe. If this Obadiah is the prophet, then the Book of Obadiah dates to the late 6th century B.C., and not to the mid-9th century (845 B.C.), during the reign of Jehoash/Joash of Judah, as some suppose, and not to the earliest decades of the 6th century (586 B.C.), immediately after the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple, as others suppose. The Bible does not say this Obadiah and the prophet of the Book of Obadiah are different persons, it does not say they are the same. No evidence one way or the other can be drawn from the letter of the text of the Bible alone.<ref name=gen/>

*All of these facts taken together, according to an historical-grammatical method, point to the post-exilic period, around the reign of Cyrus the Persian or later, about the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, (Obadiah?), Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. But this cannot be drawn from the letter of the text of the Bible alone. The Book of Job offered devout Jews among the people some explanation for their sufferings during the Exile and after their return to Jerusalem.

*The Wycliffe Bible Commentary on Obadiah confirms that judgment came upon Edom, starting with the Nabatean invasion soon after the time of Obadiah. Indications that this was already happening at the time the book was written can be seen in Obadiah 1, 6-7.<ref>The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, June 1, 1962, by Charles F. Pfeiffer (Editor), Everett F. Harrison (Editor) 1552 pages. Publisher: Moody Publishers; 1st edition (June 1, 1962) ISBN 0802496954 ISBN 978-0802496959.</ref> According to [http://www.nndb.com/people/156/000097862/ Strabo], XVI.iv.21 "The Nabataeans and Sabaeans, situated above Syria, are the first people who occupy Arabia Felix. '''They were frequently in the habit of overrunning this country before the Romans became masters of it''', but at present both they and the Syrians are subject to the Romans. The capital of the Nabataeans is called Petra …" (''boldface emphasis added'')

*Edom was pushed out of its ancient home by the Arabian tribe of the Nabateans, who seized power, so that many Edomites had to move to the west side of the Dead Sea, to newly acquired land in the northern Negev. Hebron was made the new capital of displaced Edom's new home in exile in south Judah. Other towns were Marisa and Beth-Sur. In the Hellenistic age (which starts with the conquests of Alexander the Great in 333), the name "Idumea" refers to the Negev. The Edomite homeland had been taken over by the Nabataeans, who repelled Greek attacks. The Maccabees, especially [[John Hyrcanus]] (c. 125 BC), subdued and Judaized the Edomites.

*The widely disparate datings of Job himself back to the times of Abraham, or Jacob, or Joseph, or their sons, or Moses, as predating the Exodus, originally comes from the speculations of various rabbis in the '''[[Talmud]]'''.<ref>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8692-job Jewish Encyclopedia: Job]</ref> Most Protestants believe and teach that the Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, probably written around the time of Abraham.<ref>[http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/11-03.html LaVista Church of Christ: Which Book is the Oldest in the Bible? Posted November 3, 2007] (lavistachurchofchrist.org) [http://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/the-oldest-book-job-1-5/ The Scroll Eaters: The Oldest Book: Job 1–5. Posted on January 24, 2011] (thescrolleaters.wordpress.com) [http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/job.html Job the man – Web encyclopedia – Christian answers.net]</ref> This has become a traditional teaching. But it cannot be drawn from the letter of the text of the Bible alone. The historical Sabeans are not discussed in Bible studies of the Book of Job.
*''See'' [http://www.holyhome.nl/ot%20pseudepigrapha.pdf Pseudepigrapha].
*[http://www.holyhome.nl/ot%20pseudepigrapha.pdf Testament of Job]

See text of Bible references in this section: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2021:22-32&version=KJV Genesis 21:22-32], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2023:5-6&version=KJV Genesis 23:5-6], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2026:12-14&version=KJV Genesis 26:12-14], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2036:33-34&version=KJV Genesis 36:33-34], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra%208:9&version=KJV Ezra 8:9], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra%2010:10-12&version=KJV Ezra 10:10-12], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah%209&version=KJV Nehemiah 9], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah%2010:1-5&version=KJV Nehemiah 10:1-5], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah%2012:25-26&version=KJV Nehemiah 12:25-26], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=obadiah%201:1&version=KJV Obadiah 1:1] [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=obadiah%206-17&version=KJV Obadiah 6-17][https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:1-3&version=KJV Job 1:1-3], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:13-15&version=KJV Job 1:13-15], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:17&version=KJV Job 1:17], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2037:2-38:2&version=KJV Job 37:2–38:2], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2042:5-6&version=KJV Job 42:5-6], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%201:4&version=KJV Ezekiel 1:4], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=obadiah%208&version=KJV Obadiah 8], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=habakkuk%201:6-11&version=KJV Habakkuk 1:6-11]

== Interpretation ==

Christian theology often views the fact that God gave Job twice the material possessions he had, but exactly the same number of children as an indication of heaven. Job was only given the same number of children as before instead of double because he would see his original children again in Heaven (it can be considered a "sense of God's humor" that Job's wife -- who suggested that Job curse God and die -- had to go through ten more pregnancies). Job clearly demonstrates the limitations of wisdom, the evil of rash judgment of innocent victims of devastating losses, and the need for patient humility in the midst of persecution. It offered devout Jews among the people some explanation for their sufferings during the Exile and after their return to Jerusalem. James in his New Testament letter "to the twelve tribes of the dispersion" urges his Hebrew Christian brethren suffering persecution to not be discouraged, citing Job as a lesson in patient waiting for the reward of righteousness ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%205:7-11&version=NABRE James 5:7-11]) and not giving up the faith.

==Adaptions==
A Little Princess by Frances Hogdson Burnett is in a way a children's version of Job. Like jJob, Sarah Crewe loses everything. Like Job, the point of this was to discover if Sarah had true faith in God (in other words, was a "nice child" or a "horrid" one). But unlike Job, Sarah kept trusting in God and did not judge Him.

==References==
<references/>

{{Old Testament Books}}

[[Category:Biblical Books| a8]]
[[Category:Old Testament Books| a8]]

Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?

2021-07-21T19:50:02Z

MamiAngel:

The [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] is perfectly written at the highest intellectual level, and yet its authorship is a complete mystery. Not even modern, sophisticated analysis of authorship can suggest a plausible writer for this great work. Whoever wrote this apparently wrote virtually nothing else. Scholars agree that Paul certainly did not write this.

It was written after the [[Passion of Christ]], as made clear by its references in the past tense to Jesus's work, yet before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

In contrast with all other epistles and letters in the [[New Testament]], it is misnomer to call this the "Epistle" to the Hebrews. It is not a letter; there is no introduction, and it reads like a sermon. Nor was it formally addressed to the "Hebrews"; its teachings are for all.

__TOC__
==Evidence that Jesus wrote it==
Reasons to conclude that Jesus wrote this book are:
*the author quotes [[Jesus]] in the first person: "Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O [[God]], as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”<ref>Hebrews 10:7 ([[ESV]]).</ref>
*the author makes observations about Jesus that only Jesus himself could make, and does so in the present perfect progressive tense to convey his ongoing presence at the time, such as "in every respect [Jesus] has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."<ref>Hebrews 4:15 ([[ESV]]).</ref>
*this sermon appears identical to the sermon given by Jesus on the road to Emmaus, referring to Jesus in the third person. Given that Jesus said this sermon for two travelers, it makes sense that He would write his sermon down for the benefit of all. The length of this Epistle -- about 90 minutes if spoken naturally and thoughtfully with pauses, questions, and interruptions -- matches the length of the brisk walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus as nightfall approached as described in Luke 24:13-35.
*by describing Hebrew culture in perfect Greek, this has Jesus' trademark intellectual style of overcoming ostensibly insurmountable barriers, analogous to His walking on water and turning water into wine.
*the tone of authority is greater than in any other letter in the Bible, as in Hebrews 9:27: "It is reserved for men to die once, and then be judged."
*this Epistle was written before any physical persecution of the disciples: "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." ([http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/12-4.htm|Hebrews 12:4]<ref>[[ESV]].</ref>) Stephen was martyred around A.D. 37, merely a few years after the [[Crucifixion]] of [[Jesus]], so this Epistle was written before then. But there is indication to some afflictions having had occurred prior to this Epistle.<ref>Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10%3A32-34&version=RSV Hebrews 10:32-34] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A3&version=RSV 13:3] which testifies to their sufferings and physical abuse (Strong's numbers ''3804'' and ''2347'' and ''2558'': KJV "afflictions" ''hardship'' or ''pain'', and "afflictions" ''pressure, anguish, burden, persecution, tribulation'', and "adversity" ''maltreat, torment''). See text analysis: [http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/10-32.htm Hebrews 10:32], [http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/10-33.htm 33], [http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/10-34.htm 34] and [http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/13-3.htm 13:3]</ref> It is quite possible this Epistle was written prior to the [[Ascension]], during Jesus's time here.
*this Epistle uses the same distinctive phrase once used by Jesus as quoted in the [[Gospel of John]], which reinforces the likelihood of his authorship.
*the writing has a "striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style," and "is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer," using "168 terms ... which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical or classical Greek."<ref name="Encyclopedia">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref> There is not a single grammatical flaw in the entire work, despite its complexity.
*it is a playful enigma: a message to Hebrews written in perfect Greek, a miracle of an intellectual nature. Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language? It shows that [[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God does have a sense of humor]], and a highly intellectual one, like the encounter on the road to Emmaus.
*the substance of this work is a firsthand account of Jesus becoming man, subsequently crying out to God to save Jesus from real death, which God then did by intervening; only Jesus could have described this;<ref>Jesus "offered up prayers and heartfelt stirrings with loud cries and tears to Him having the power to save Him from death, and He was heard, for he feared God."</ref> the work quotes Jesus' thought process, which only Jesus would know.
*Jesus occasionally visited the [[Apostles]] during this time, but spent most of this time doing something else - perhaps writing this Epistle?
*the Epistle was directed at the [[Hebrew]] population, which was Jesus's first priority in His ministry.
*Jesus was surely capable of writing a great work, and there is no other known written work by Him.
*It is fitting that Jesus would make one last attempt -- post-Resurrection -- to persuade the Hebrew people for whom His ministry was originally intended.
*In light of the rejection of Jesus by some Hebrew leaders, it makes sense that Jesus would write a post-Resurrection letter to the Hebrew people anonymously.
*The Epistle to the Hebrews is unique in its attempt to explain the concept of [[faith]] -- something that Jesus emphasized in His ministry, and perhaps only He could explain as this Epistle does.
*Jesus spent 40 days on Earth between the Resurrection and the Ascension, and it is implausible that He did not continue His ministry in an effective way. Writing (or distributing) an Epistle is most plausible activity, given what had transpired.
*Many have attributed the [[Epistle of James]] to a brother of Jesus, and if His brother wrote a letter, then why wouldn't Jesus?
*Hebrews 5:5 quotes something that God said directly to Jesus, which no one else would know.
*the sermon/writing was likely intended for an audience in Jerusalem,<ref name="Encyclopedia"/> which is where Jesus was most focused.
*Hebrews 13:19 apparently refers to the return of Jesus in the first person: "But I beseech you, please do this, that I may be restored to you more quickly."
*Unlike most other writings in the New Testament after the [[Gospels]], there is no reference to post-Ascension events.
*ancient manuscripts refer in Hebrews 13:21 to God working among "you", not "us", which is what Jesus (rather than a disciple) would say.
*"Amen" was typically added later at the end of New Testament letters (and the Book of Revelation), which means that the ending following Hebrews 13:21 is almost certainly not part of the original. Someone probably thought this letter was by Paul (since disproven) and copied the endings from his letters (see, e.g., Titus).
*the father-son analogy to explain the nature of God (Hebrews 7:4) was a personal favorite of Jesus in explaining life.
*in Hebrews 12:4, the distinction between the speaker and the audience with respect to shedding blood in resistance to sin would have likely been only by Jesus: "You have not yet shed blood in resistance and striving against sin."
*any writing by Jesus would intentionally be anonymous, so that it does not eclipse the other valuable writings by disciples.
*the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] contains more warnings against [[apostasy]] than any other book in the [[Bible]], as one might expect [[Jesus]] to emphasize. See Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-31, 12:15-29.
*the Epistle to the Hebrews is written in Jesus's style, as you can read in the Gospels: say the truth simple and straightforward, use comparisons, and put in some questions. If you pick any part in the Epistle to the Hebrews and compare and contrast it with Jesus's words in the Gospels, you will note this.
*the Epistle to the Hebrews shows things no one had ever thought of before. It perfectly explains the Law and Prophets (which did Jesus in Luke 24), it shows Jesus's soul (which only Jesus could do), it rexplains important doctrines (which Jesus explained), it shows adoration and complete understanding of God (which only Jesus had) and reveals going-ons unknown to anyone else (like Jesus's entering of the Temple). In other words, it is written from Jesus's point of view.
(add to list)

== Counter Arguments that Christ Didn't Author Hebrews ==
Although, technically, He is the co-author of ALL of Scripture, but that is a different matter. Overall, the arguments in this post are flawed and thin at best.

*Hebrews 10:7 quotes Jesus in the first person: "Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

This is misleading, as it is merely a quote of Christ speaking in the OT. It doesn't mean that He wrote Hebrews.

*Hebrews 4:15 makes observations about Jesus that only Jesus himself could make, and does so in the present perfect progressive tense to convey his ongoing presence at the time, such as "in every respect [Jesus] has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

Notice that the author says, "as WE are," distinguishing himself from Christ.

*By describing Hebrew culture in perfect Greek, this has Jesus' trademark intellectual style of overcoming ostensibly insurmountable barriers, analogous to His walking on water and turning water into wine.

This is a paper-thin argument. Paul was capable of doing the same thing, especially inspired by the Holy Spirit.

*The tone of authority in Hebrews is no greater than any of the other epistles. For example:

Romans 14:12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

*//This Epistle was written before any physical persecution of the disciples: "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." (12:44)//

This just means that the AUDIENCE had not yet been persecuted in that manner, not ALL Christians. The author makes this SAME point contradicting himself later when he argues that the speaker is distinguishing himself from the audience with respect to shedding blood (see rebuttal later).

It is more likely that Hebrews was written in the early sixties, just before the tribulation began.

Hebrews is FILLED with timing statements that allude to the very nearness of the coming judgment upon the Jews and Jerusalem and the end of the age, which began in AD 66/67.

Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who are ABOUT to inherit salvation?

Hebrews 2:5 He did not subject to angels the age ABOUT to come.

Hebrews 6:5 ...and have tasted ...the powers of the age ABOUT to come.

Hebrews 8:13 In the calling [it] new He has declared the what is now former,' is becoming obsolete, even growing old near disappearing.

Hebrews 9:8-10 The Holy Spirit was making clear, that the way of the [heavenly] Holy Places was not yet revealed, while the first tent was standing, which [is] a symbol for the present time, in which both the gifts and sacrifices are offered [are] not able to perfect the conscience of the worshiper… flesh until a time of correction (compare Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; 4:13).

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ has come as a high priest of the good things ABOUT to come...

Hebrews 9:26 …NOW but once at the end of the ages for the removal of sin, by the sacrifice of Himself, He has appeared.

Hebrews 10:1 …the Law, a shadow of the good things ABOUT to come...

Hebrews 10:25 ...encouraging [each other], even much more as you see the Day DRAWING NEAR.

Hebrews 10:27-28 ...a certain expectation of judgment and a fury of a fire which is ABOUT to consume the adversaries, anyone who rejected the Law of Moses…

Hebrews 10:36-37 In order that… you may receive the thing promised, for yet in a VERY, VERY LITTLE WHILE, the one who is coming will come, and not delay.

Hebrews 13:12-14 Because here we do not have a permanent city but we are seeking the one coming (see Rev. 18:4)

*MOST of the Epistles quote or refer to what Jesus said in the Gospels. That doesn't mean He authored them.

*The scholarship and grammar of the Epistle does not prove that the author is Christ.

*//Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language? It shows that God does have a sense of humor...//

This is speculative at best. We don't know that it wasn't FIRST written in Hebrew. There is a great deal of historical evidence that the Gospels, other than Luke, were first written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, many of the Jews in the first century were of "the dispersal" and did not even speak Hebrew as their primary language, but the common language of the day--koine Greek.

*//The substance of this work is a firsthand account of Jesus becoming man, subsequently crying out to God to save Jesus from real death, which God then did by intervening; only Jesus could have described this;[6] the work quotes Jesus' thought process, which only Jesus would know.//

Again, the Gospel authors did the exact same thing. For example, they wrote what Christ was THINKING, when it says that He KNEW what was in man's hearts, or He KNEW their thoughts.

*//The Epistle was directed at the Hebrew population, which was Jesus's first priority in His ministry.//

As was Peter's primary mission. Furthermore, Paul always went to the Jews FIRST, in every city he came to. He expressed his burden for his fellow Jews in Romans (Romans 9:3; 10:1). In addition, Peter wrote to the Jews twice (1Pet. 1:1; 2Pet. 3:1) and said that Paul had written to them before (2Pet. 3:15).

*//It is fitting that Jesus would make one last attempt -- post-Resurrection -- to persuade the Hebrew people for whom His ministry was originally intended.//

//Jesus spent 40 days on Earth between the Resurrection and the Ascension, and it is implausible that He did not continue His ministry in an effective way. Writing (or distributing) an Epistle is most plausible activity, given what had transpired.//

True, but this is again, speculative. Furthermore, why is it that the early church fathers were virtually unanimous that this letter was written by Paul, and NONE of them said or suggested that it was Christ.

*//The Epistle to the Hebrews is unique in its attempt to explain the concept of faith -- something that Jesus emphasized in His ministry, and perhaps only He could explain as this Epistle does.//

Again, as does Paul in Romans.

*//Many have attributed the Epistle of James to a brother of Jesus, and if His brother wrote a letter, then why wouldn't Jesus?//

Yet ANOTHER paper thin argument.

*//Hebrews 5:5 quotes something that God said directly to Jesus, which no one else would know.//

First, MANY of the Scriptural authors quote things that they couldn't have known. They were revealed to them by the Spirit.

Second, this is a direct quote of Psalm 2:7.

*//The sermon/writing was likely intended for an audience in Jerusalem, which is where Jesus was most focused.//

The recipients of the letter were predominantly Jewish, with few gentiles in their group, which fits with the church of ROME. The majority of the Jewish recipients were facing persecution, or pressure from unconverted Jews to remain Jewish, and many were turning away from Christ. Paul dealt with this in Romans and Galatians.

Hebrews appears to have been written in Italy, likely Rome, where Paul was imprisoned for a time; or rather the author was with Italians and writing it to Jews who were in Rome (13:24). Clement was in Rome and he quoted Hebrews very early, so the latter as the more accurate conclusion.

There is also a possible reference to a previous, brief letter from the author to the recipients (13:22), unless that is a reference to the present letter. If this is the case, then it fits with Paul’s previous letter to the Romans. However, if this was the letter in which Peter was referencing to his recipients (2Pet. 3:15), then this letter was not to the Romans, as Peter’s letters were to the dispersed Jews. If Paul wrote this from Rome, after release from his first imprisonment, then this is also fitting.

*//Unlike most other writings in the New Testament after the Gospels, there is no reference to post-Ascension events.//

There are hardly ANY references to post-ascension events in ANY of the Epistles.

*//Ancient manuscripts refer in Hebrews 13:21 to God working among "you", not "us", which is what Jesus (rather than a disciple) would say.//

OR someone was not AMONG the recipients would say. The NT epistles are full of second person references like this...

*//"Amen" was typically added later at the end of New Testament letters (and the Book of Revelation), which means that the ending following Hebrews 13:21 is almost certainly not part of the original. Someone probably thought this letter was by Paul (since disproven) and copied the endings from his letters (see, e.g., Titus).//

Several of Paul's letters have the amen well BEFORE the end (Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 1Timothy 6:16; 2Timothy 4:18), and Peter's first epistle did too (1Peter 5:11).

And some of the letters don't even CONTAIN an "amen" (2Corinthians; Colossians; 1Thessalonians; 2Thessalonians; Titus; Philemon; and James).

*//The father-son analogy to explain the nature of God (Hebrews 7:4) was a personal favorite of Jesus in explaining life.//

This verse speaks nothing of a father-son analogy. The ONLY father-son analogy is in Hebrew 12:5-8, about the father disciplining a son. This was a reference to Proverbs 3:11-12. Christ NEVER used this analogy.

Hebrews 7:3 speaks of Melchizedek being without a father and mother listed in Scripture as a type of Christ, but Jesus never spoke of this.

*//In Hebrews 12:4, the distinction between the speaker and the audience with respect to shedding blood in resistance to sin would have likely been only by Jesus: "You have not yet shed blood in resistance and striving against sin."//

Earlier, this verse was used to say that NO ONE had been persecuted yet. So which is it.

And again, this could have been nearly ANY of the Apostles. Paul especially had been through NUMEROUS physical trials where his blood was shed (2Corinthians 11:23-25).

*//Any writing by Jesus would intentionally be anonymous, so that it does not eclipse the other valuable writings by disciples.//

Another speculation. And, as said previously, ALL Scripture is co-authored by Christ.

*//The Epistle to the Hebrews contains more warnings against apostasy than any other book in the Bible, as one might expect Jesus to emphasize. See Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-31, 12:15-29.//

This is one final speculation. The warning about Jews returning to their tradition is fitting for the audience, regardless of the author.

*The only interesting coincidental argument is that Hebrews is the same length as the walk to Emmaus. However, this doesn't prove that Christ was the author. It could just as easily have been one of those whom HEARD Christ on that walk, or even someone whom they shared it with. Given the brilliance of the entire discussion, is it any wonder that the two who heard Christ that day shared this with numerous people?

== Other Objections -- and Rebuttals to the Objections ==

But of course there are many reasons which shed doubt on such an idea:

*Jesus didn't leave any writings while he walked the earth. Therefore a note from the grave would have been doubly surprising for his pupils.

:But this rebuttal is circular, assuming what it attempts to prove.
::No, it just stresses the point how surprising this idea of Jesus's authorship is.

:::No, it would be more surprising if Jesus, as intelligent as He was, never ever ever wrote anything.
::::Pythagoras ''never ever ever'' wrote anything.

:::::But scripts were plentiful in Jesus's time, and the importance of writing was widely recognized. The Old Testament relied on it.

*Traditionally we expect God's word to be carved in stone, not scribbled on parchment...

:But humor is no substitute for logical argument ...
::Humor comes into place when there isn't any logical argument in the first place: your ''reasons'' are at best circumstantial, and the question "what did Jesus do during the forty days" is amusing - perhaps he had 39 days of a writer's block, and then started scribbling?

*In light of the rejection of Jesus by some Hebrew leaders, it makes sense that Jesus would write a post-Resurrection letter to the Hebrew people '''''not''''' anonymously, as this would persuade them more easily.

:No, it's clear that people who rejected Jesus when He was alive would not be persuaded by something attributed to him after the [[Passion for Christ]].
::So, why writing then at all?

:::Because Jesus would not have simply given up.

*The idea of the authorship Jesu doesn't fit the first verses of the letter, where the author takes the position of one to whom God spoke in his Son:
{{cquote|But in these the Last Days He has spoken to us through His Son, whom He determined to be the inheritor of everthing, the Son, by whom He made the worlds, [[Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Hebrews 1:2]]}}

*The idea that this letter was written before the [[Ascension]] is ridiculous and stems from ignorance: the last verses include greetings from "those in Italy"...

::The last verses could have been added later. By Martians. I mean, if youe're going to make wild suppositions and treat them as serious claims, why hedge your bets?

:::See the explanation above. The final verses that mention Italy were added after the final "Amen", which itself was an addition to several letters and the [[Book of Revelation]], signifying "The End."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:24, 5 November 2012 (EST)

::::Even if we suppose that the words "those in Italy" were part of the original, who's to say they weren't authored by Jesus? Jesus is The Word made in flesh, there's nothing to prevent him from going to Italy and than quickly coming back to the Galilee during the 40 days before his Ascension. Sending an epistle from Italy would have also symbolized the universal message of Christianity - an epistle to the Hebrew is sent in Greek from Italy, the center of Latin culture. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:55, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

* There is zero archeological or documentary evidence to support such a claim.

:No such evidence would be expected for a one-time sermon or epistle.

== Rebuttals in detail ==
*"''the teaching is virtually identical in style and substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus as described in the [[Gospel of Luke (Translated)]], which He likewise did while appearing to be someone else, and while speaking about Himself in the third person.''"
:'''Contra:''' This statement is not only counterfactual - it doesn't fit into Aschlafly's line of reasoning, neither: Aschlafly himself states the epistle is very much different in style from the other parts of the New Testament. As for the substance of the teachings: "''The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office.''" (from the [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm source] used by Aschlafly). Needless to say that e.g., the Jesus's status as a high-priest isn't mentioned on the road to Emmaus.
::'''Pro:''' Why wouldn't Jesus mention his status as a high priest, when addressing a Hebrew audience???
:::'''Contra:''' You are missing the point: you claim that the '''"teaching is virtually identical in [...] substance to the one made by Jesus on the road to Emmaus'''" - but you are not able to show that!
::::'''Pro:''' It was the same sort of explanation -- the same style -- as the Epistle to the Hebrews, as inferred from the account of the discussion on the road to Emmaus in the [[Gospel of Luke]].
:::::'''Contra:''' You write ''Hebrews 5:5 quotes something that God said directly to Jesus, which no one else would know. ''. But if Hebrews is ''virtually identical'' in substance to the teaching on the road to Emmaus, the author of the epistle could have taken those ''somethings'' from reports of the encounter.
*''the writing has a "striking purity of language and elegance of Greek style," and "is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer," using "168 terms ... which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical or classical Greek."<ref name="Encyclopedia">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref> There is not a :'''Contra:''' God isn't the only one with decent grammar! This shows only that great intellects were attracted by Christianity even in the early years (as later was [[Augustine|Augustinus]]). BTW: As the German language, Greek allows for an easy creation of new words. See e.g., ἀνασταυρόω : this word is uniquely used in the epistle and means "to crucify again" - its just a merge of ἀνα and σταυρόω. A German could speak of a "Zweitkreuzigung" in a similar manner.
::'''Pro:''' Not the very early years, when this Epistle was written. Jesus's work was not yet made available and known to intellectuals at this early time.
:::'''Contra:''' An extraordinary statement! Do you think that not one gifted, well educated man heard (and was touched) by the teachings of Jesus in the early years?

*''it is a playful enigma: a message to Hebrews written in perfect Greek, a miracle of an intellectual nature. Why isn't this message to Hebrews in the Hebrew language? It shows that [[Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?|God does have a sense of humor]], and a highly intellectual one, like the encounter on the road to Emmaus.''
:'''Contra:''' The author could choose between Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. Why shouldn't he write in Greek? Obviously he mastered the language very well (perhaps better than Aramaic and Hebrew), and Greek was spoken throughout the whole Roman empire.
::'''Pro:''' The reason why it surprising to be in Greek is because the audience primarily spoke Hebrew.
:::'''Contra:''' Did his audience "primarily spoke Hebrew"? Are you sure? Did the author address the priests - or perhaps traders, scholars, even carpenters, etc.? [[World_History_Lecture_Two#Did_Jesus_Preach_in_Greek.3F|To quote you]]: ''"For teaching purposes, the powerful Greek language would have been useful. Greek was in common use by Jewish people in Palestine, thanks in part to the conquest by Alexander the Great. Greek was even widely used in Jewish ossuaries to bury the dead. Commerce took place often in Greek, and Jesus had been in business as a carpenter. He surely knew the language. Several of the key terms, such as Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees as "hypocrites", is derived directly from Greek without any comparable term in Aramaic or Hebrew.''"

::::'''Pro:''' The Epistle is obviously directed to those well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures, which means Hebrew was their first language. Why would anyone other than Jesus quote Hebrew scriptures for a Hebrew audience in perfect Greek???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 10 December 2012 (EST)
:::::'''Contra:''' As you said: ''For teaching purposes, the powerful Greek language would have been useful.''

*''...speaking about Himself in the third person'''
:'''Contra:''' The use of the third person for the author can be found often in classical literature. E.g., when we read
::{{cquote|Caesar saw the horse.}}
:it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about
::{{cquote|Caesar saw me.}}
:Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (''me''). The same holds true for the ''Epistle to the Hebrews''. One example is Hebrews 3:6

:Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ· οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς ἐάνπερ τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν

:Reading this, one sees that Christ is set over the house, while ''we'' (including the author!) are the house. A diligent study of the epistle reveals a couple of such examples.

*''...the work quotes Jesus' thought process, which only Jesus would know.''
:'''Contra:''' If this logic were to hold true, it would mean that God was the author of Genesis. Along with every other event that is described in the Bible that no mortal man could have been witness to.

== Historical considerations: Critical analysis ==

''See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]]

'''The LETTER TO THE HEBREWS'''. The Book of Hebrews is a perfect supporting conclusion to the list of texts of OLD TESTAMENT Bible proofs that the long-expected Christ is Jesus.
:This outstanding exposition of scripture, ''which also stands as one of the finest pieces of world literature'', is best read within the context of the interpretation of everything written about Jesus in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms, as presented in Luke 24:44-48, and as [[Christian apologetics|apologetical literature]] written during the time setting between Acts 18 and 19, and as an encouragement to remain faithful in the context of the discouraging persecution being inflicted on the believers by the Jews [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/15-20.htm John 15:20].
::[[Andy Schlafly]] is persuaded that Jesus himself wrote this work during the 40 days he appeared to the apostles he had chosen, while he was with them and spoke of the kingdom of God, and that he left it with them—just as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel also entrusted their writings to their disciples, copies to be kept in earthen jars. See Isaiah 8:16; Jeremiah 36 and 51:59-60; Daniel 12:4, 9. This is fully in accord with the practical and material secondary meaning of 2 Corinthians 4:5-7, "''We have this treasure in earthen vessels''". See [[Dead Sea scrolls]]. Hebrews is written to the whole church as an encouragement to every follower of Christ to remain faithful during the persecutions they were already facing from the Jews and in the coming persecutions from the pagan nations which were certain to occur in centuries to come (Matthew 5:11-12; John 15:18-20). The same message of encouragement to persevere and remain faithful in the face of terrible persecution of Christianity is presented in the [[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)|Book of Revelation]]. The claim that Hebrews is from Jesus himself who is ''the perfection of God'' (Hebrews 1:3; 6:26; Colossians 1:19), is a highly controversial claim never advanced before the 21st century, based on the critically attested grammatically '''''perfect''''' Greek of the text. This claim was met with universal rejection by biblical scholars and theologians the moment it was publicly proposed. No mention of Jesus composing or dictating any writing is found in any early Christian writings or commentaries on scripture from the second century onward, other than the apocryphal ''[http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/articles-and-poetry/jesus-letter-to-abgar-the-toparch/ Letters of Christ and Abgarus]''.

:Everything in the Book of Hebrews and the Gospels that could only have been known to Jesus he disclosed to his disciples during the forty days after his resurrection when he appeared to them, and spoke of the kingdom of God. They in turn shared this knowledge with their disciples in word and in writing. Matthew 10:27; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2-3; John 16:12.

:Among the various authors of ''Hebrews'' historically proposed since the second century are '''Paul, Priscilla, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Epaphras, Silas, Philip, Clement of Rome''' ([http://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/4-3.htm Philippians 4:3]), and others. See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/1-1.htm ''multiple commentaries on'' Hebrews (biblehub.com)]. See the following five articles:
:*[http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/writer-hebrews/ '''The Writer of Hebrews''' by R. C. Sproul. Reformed Bible Studies (ligonier.org)]
:*[http://biblehub.com/library/pullan/the_books_of_the_new_testament/chapter_xviii_the_epistle_to.htm '''The Epistle to the Hebrews''' The Books of the Bible - Leighton Pullam (biblehub.com)]
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews '''Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews''' (en.wikipedia.org)]
:*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia '''Epistle to the Hebrews''' (newadvent.org)] ''scroll down to'' '''Author'''.
:*[http://biblescripture.net/Hebrews.html '''The Letter to the Hebrews''' (biblescripture.net)] ''also includes entire Douay-Rheims text of Hebrews''.

"'''but in these days he has spoken to us by a Son'''" Hebrews 1:2. Third person reference to Jesus.
:This verse poses a difficulty for those who claim that this epistle was written by Jesus Christ Himself: He (God) has spoken to us (men, including the writer) through His Son (Jesus Christ) - which implies that His Son and the writer are different entities. But upon closer investigation one realizes that many early Apostles, in imitation of Jesus, spoke about themselves in this modest style of using the third person, as when John referenced himself as the "One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, ESV) and Mark referenced himself as "but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked." (Mark 14:52, ESV) Jesus himself, of course, frequently referred to himself in the third person as in the phrase Son of Man.
:On the other hand, there is no other example where Jesus or an Apostle spoke about himself using both the first and the third person in the same sentence!

:The strongest internal textual evidence against Jesus being the author of the ''Letter to the Hebrews'' during the forty days he appeared to the disciples and spoke of the kingdom of God is in Hebrews 1:3, which says (past tense), "''When he had made purification for sins, '''he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high'''...''". (RSV) Conservative Bible scholars carefully consider the following facts in assessing the claim that Jesus is the author of ''Hebrews''. On the day Jesus ascended into heaven and the disciples stood gazing into heaven as he went, "''two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.' ''" (Acts 1:11 RSV). Peter later testified to the Jews that Jesus is "''...the Christ appointed for you, '''whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke''' by the mouth of his holy prophets...''". (Acts 3:20-21 RSV). There is no evidence in scripture that Jesus after having ascended into heaven "''and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high''" descended to earth in a second coming to write this document. The writer explicitly refers to the fact that Jesus "''sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high''" as being an already accomplished fact '''before''' ''Hebrews'' was written. Compare Acts 1:11 (already cited) and the following supportive texts:
:*"''But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God''". Acts 7:55.
:*"''...their Master and yours is in heaven...''" Ephesians 6:9.
:*"''...our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ...''" Philippians 3:20.
:*"''When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.''" Colossians 3:4.
:*"''Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.''" Colossians 4:1.
:*"''...wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.''" 1 Thessalonians 1:10.
:*"''For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.''" 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
:*"''...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire''" 2 Thessalonians 1:7.
:*"''But when Christ appeared as a high priest...he entered once for all into the Holy Place...thus securing an eternal redemption.'''" Hebrews 9:11a, 12.
:*"''For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf...so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.''" Hebrews 9:24 and 28.
:*"''But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, '''then to wait''' until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.''" Hebrews 10:12-13.
:*"''For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.''" 1 Corinthians 15:25-26.
:*"''...Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.''" 1 Peter 3:21b-22.
:*"''...whom '''heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke''' by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old''" Acts 3:21.
:*"''he commands all men everywhere to repent, because '''he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed''', and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.''" Acts 17:31.

:In answer to the objection that the ascension of Christ into heaven is presented in ''Hebrews'' as a past event, supporters of the claim that Jesus is author of Hebrews can point to the Bible pattern of prophetic writing which includes the Semitic manner of referring to a divinely guaranteed future fulfillment as having already been accomplished, because it is an absolute certainty. The divine guarantee of the future is written in the past tense. Thus, Jesus as author of Hebrews is argued as having written in the past tense of his own future ascension to the glorious throne of God the Father as an already accomplished reality. See the following article:
:*[http://www.plainerwords.com/artman2/publish/2007/Prophecy_Past_Or_Present_Tense.shtml '''Prophecy: Past or Present Tense?''' (plainerwords.com)]

:Against the authorship of Jesus there are also those passages all through the Letter to the Hebrews, emphasized in boldface here, that Jesus cannot be saying of himself, even in referring to himself in the second and third person. The words "we, us, our" include the speaker and would need to be changed to "you" and "your":
:*"''spoken to '''us''' by his Son''" Hebrews 1:2 (spoken to you by his Son)
:*"''purified '''us''' of '''our sins'''''" Hebrews 1:3 (purified you of your sins)
:*"'''''we''' ought to pay greater attention to the things that were heard, lest perhaps '''we''' drift away''" Hebrews 2:1 (you ought to pay greater attention to the things that were heard, lest perhaps you drift away)
:*"''how will '''we''' escape if '''we''' neglect so great a salvation...confirmed to '''us''' by those who heard''" Hebrews 2:3 (how will you escape if you neglect so great a salvation...confirmed to you by those who heard0
:*"''whose house '''we''' are, if '''we''' hold fast''" Hebrews 3:6 (whose house you are if you hold fast)
:*"''Let '''us''' therefore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, that '''we''' may receive mercy''" Hebrews 4:16 (Let us together therefore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, that you may receive mercy)
:*"''where as a forerunner Jesus entered for '''us'''''" Hebrews 6:20 (where as a forerunner Jesus entered for you)
:*"''For Christ has not entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for '''us'''''" Hebrews 9:24 (...now to appear in the presence of God for you)
:*"''Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for '''us'''...let '''us''' draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having '''our''' hearts sprinkled from an '''evil conscience'''''" Hebrews 10:19-22 (Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for you...let us together draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience)
:*"''let '''us''' also, seeing '''we''' are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight and '''the sin which so easily entangles us''', and let '''us''' run with patience the race that is set before '''us''', looking to Jesus''" Hebrews 12:1-2a (let us together also, seeing you are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles you, and let us together run with patience the race that is set before you, looking to Jesus)
:*"''Through him, then, let '''us''' offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually''" Hebrews 13:15 (Through him, then, offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually)
:*"'''''Pray for us'''''" Hebrews 13:18 (Pray for the brothers)

:Probably the best scriptural response to the above objection is found in the words of Jesus in the [[Lord's Prayer]] and his word to Saul on the road to Damascus:
:*"'''''Our''' Father...give '''us''' this day...forgive '''us''' our debts...lead '''us''' not into temptation, but deliver '''us''' from evil''" Matthew 6:9-13, also Luke 11:3-4.
:*"''Saul, Saul, why do you persecute '''me'''''" Acts 9:4.
:In support of the argument that Jesus is the author of ''Hebrews'' by dictation to his chosen ''amanuensis'' (just as Tertius wrote Paul's letter to the Romans, 16:22), is the fact that Jesus after having ascended into heaven appeared to chosen individuals on earth, including John, who at Jesus' command '''wrote''' the ''Book of Revelation''. See the following texts:
:*"''...he fell to the ground and '''heard a voice saying''' to him, ...''" Acts 9:4.
:*"''Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. '''The Lord said to him''' in a vision...''" Acts 9:10-17.
:*"''...I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and '''bear witness to the things in which you have seen me''' and to those in which I will appear to you...''". Acts 26:16.
:*"''Now '''write''' what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter.''" Revelation 1:19.
:*"''And he who sat on the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.' Also he said, ''''Write''' this...' ''" Revelation 21:5.
:A reasonable counter-argument to this response is the fact that every extant manuscript witness of the text of ''Hebrews'', unlike the witness of the text of ''Revelation'' and the accounts of Jesus' appearances in ''Acts'', lacks witness to any appearance of the Lord Jesus for the purpose of commanding the writing of this sacred text. This leaves the Holy Spirit as the author of ''Hebrews'', testifying to Jesus, and revealing things no man could have known, in accordance with the promises Jesus made on the night he was betrayed:
:*''when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, '''he will bear witness to me'''''" John 15:26.
:*''I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. '''He will glorify me''', for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.''" John 16:12-14.
:This might account for the lack of an opening greeting with an identification of the author. However, the Book of Revelation does include an opening greeting "''from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven '''spirits''' who are before his throne''". The appended comments at the end (Hebrews 13) would thus be the personal words of the writer of the message, which of themselves can stand alone as "''my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly''."

:"''Briefly''"! The body of the ''Letter to the Hebrews'' is not "''brief''", even by the ancient standards of public oratory or any public address at any time in history. It is about the same length as 1 Corinthians and longer than 2 Corinthians. Only Romans and Revelation are longer than Hebrews. Its length is more than double any one of the lengthy speeches in the works of Josephus, ''Antiquities'' and ''Wars''. The whole Book of Hebrews, thirteen chapters, takes about a half hour to read aloud. In contrast, the ''First Letter of Peter'', which is "''written briefly to you''" (5:12), is only five chapters, fewer than 2,340 words (the RSV text of 1 Peter is exactly 2,338 words). And ''Hebrews'' is more than two and a half times the length of 1 Peter "''written briefly to you''". This internal textual evidence gives substance to the suggestion that the end of ''Hebrews'', possibly all of chapter 13, is a brief addition to the work by another writer. The style of writing in chapter 13 is similar to Paul's admonitions to believers in other letters. The suggestion that Paul took Hebrews and forwarded it to another assembly with his apostolic approbation and approval, and that he added comments of his own by attachment, is purely speculative, lacking any textual support. This might, however, explain why Hebrews was traditionally attributed to Paul, apart from the fact that it was usually included with collections of his writings.

'''The most substantive argument''' against the claim that Jesus wrote Hebrews is the historical evidence from silence.
:This is not, however, an example of the logical fallacy of an "[[Logical fallacy#Argument_from_silence|argument from silence]]". ''A writing by Jesus himself would surely rank among the most important pieces of literature in the history of writing, and would certainly have been highly revered and preserved by the Apostles and their successors as one of the greatest treasures of Christianity.'' '''Hebrews''' ''would have been the primary Handbook of the Apostles. They would have given it first place, even before the Gospels themselves, as being authored by the Lord Himself, just as the Bible is treasured and revered by Christians today as the word of God, in first place above all other books ever written.'' None of the writings of the New Testament refers directly to Hebrews as the writing of Jesus; yet Peter refers by name to the letters of Paul, and Jude refers in general to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints and by name he quotes [[Enoch]]. Moreover, Hebrews was not one of the [[protocanonicals|protocanonical]] books of the New Testament, but was long disputed as one of the [[deuterocanonicals]]. In all of the centuries of Christianity prior to the 21st century, no discussion of the possibility of the authorship of Jesus is mentioned, discussed, debated, denounced, supported or insisted upon, by any writer, Bible commentator, apologist or controversialist, Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Independent, heretic, non-Christian, pagan, agnostic, or atheist, at any time from the First Century through the Twentieth Century. In matters of dispute over Christian doctrine, when analytical appeal to the whole of the scriptures of the Bible is inconclusive on the basis of ''sola scriptura'', evidence of the constant and consistent tradition of Christian thought and teaching has usually been determinative. But there is no suggestion in Christian tradition that Jesus wrote Hebrews. The total lack of any discursive historical evidence that anyone has ever suggested that Jesus is the real author of Hebrews, appears as a compelling argument against the proposition that Jesus wrote Hebrews. However, an intuitive perception that Jesus himself is speaking and admonishing us to remain faithful to our calling as Christians throughout the book of Hebrews is just as equally compelling to the believer.

'''In conclusion''', we have the following undeniable facts:
*The author of ''Hebrews'' is historically unknown to us.
*The '''message''' of ''Hebrews'' is not changed. Jesus is the Son of God, greater than angels, and whoever refuses to hear him and departs from him will be condemned to terrible punishment for having crucified him again by rejecting his sacrifice. Faithfulness to him in persecution even to death will have abundant compensation. Obedience to the leaders of his church is both a duty and an assurance of salvation. (See [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/13-17.htm commentary])

== Links ==
*For a scholarly discussion of the authorship of this epistle see [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
*See also [[Bible]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?}}

Manna

2021-07-21T18:00:00Z

MamiAngel:

'''Manna''' was the food sent miraculously to the [[Hebrews]] in the desert after they left slavery in [[Egypt]].<ref>Exodus 16:4-36</ref>

Some have argued that manna was natural exudates from Arabian trees and shrubs, but they are small in quantity and peculiar in taste, in contrast to the manna described in the [[Bible]].

Manna still rains in the middle east today. The flavor of manna is like bread mixed with honeydew, and it is about the size of a corvadier seed. <ref>https://momentmag.com/manna-is-real-and-not-so-heavenly/</ref>

==History==
The Israelites had been complaining in the wilderness about there being no food. So the Majesty on High rained down Manna to feed them.<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=NKJV</ref>

''Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not. 5 And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare what they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.”'' Exodus 16:4-5(NKJV).<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=NKJV</ref>

The Israelites could only gather as much for one day in the morning, according to the family of one household. The manna would appear once the dew of the morning fell on the desert. Those who gathered more manna than for that day would find the next morning that the manna expired. This was to test the children of Israel.<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=NKJV</ref>
::::'' So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.'' <ref>Deuteronomy 8:3 (NKJV).</ref>
The only time the manna could be stored up for the next day was Friday, because of the Sabbath the next day. <ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=NKJV</ref>
''23 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.’ ” 24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. '' Exodus 16:23-24 (NKJV).<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016&version=NKJV</ref>

==Jesus, the Precious One of God, and the Manna from Heaven==
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” John 6:30-33 (NKJV) <ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206&version=NKJV</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Old Testament]]

New King James Version

2021-07-20T16:27:00Z

MamiAngel:

The '''New King James Version''' is a translation of the Bible published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in 1982.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50#books&version=50; New King James Version (NKJV Bible)], ''Bible Gateway''
Version</ref> The preface describes it as a revision of the [[King James Version]] that follows ''Textus Receptus'', the Greek text used by the translators of 1611.<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html#preface "Preface"], ''New King James Version'' "The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version....the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century."</ref> Other modern translations use the Critical Text, which is based on older manuscripts.

However, NKJV does include numerous passages translated from the Critical Text in footnotes. As a result, the NKJV has earned the wrath of the [[King James only]] crowd.<ref>http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html</ref>

The NKJV is the translation used by the [[Home School Legal Defense Association]] in its magazine, ''The Home School Court Report''. The translation is also commonly used within [[Churches of Christ|Church of Christ congregations]].
== Translation ==
The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus God's preserved manuscript, like the KJV. But the NKJV has the Critical text in the footnotes and sometimes follows it. So it has been scored by the KJV-Only Movement The Critical Text is a perverted manuscript created by Satan and Catholics.

Sometimes, the NKJV translates wrong, like in Acts 4:27

For truly against '''Your holy Servant Jesus,''' whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Acts 4:27 (NKJV)
For of a truth against '''thy holy child Jesus''', whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Acts 4:27 (KJV)

But the NKJV did restore a verse on Christ's Divinity that the KJV deleted (Isaiah 54:13).

All your children shall be taught '''by the Lord''', And great shall be the peace of your children.
Isaiah 54:13 (NKJV)
And all thy children shall be taught '''of the Lord'''; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Isaiah 54:13 (KJV)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Bible Versions]]
{{Bible Versions}}