Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Sam Samson

2021-01-29T20:42:48Z

Sam Samson:

This is an alternate of [[User:SamSamson]] as a login bug has locked me out of it forever.

User:SamSamson

2021-01-29T20:42:03Z

Sam Samson: Created page with "I am now User:Sam Samson."

I am now [[User:Sam Samson]].

COVID-19

2021-01-29T20:40:52Z

Sam Samson:

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''COVID-19''' or '''Chinese Virus''' or '''Wuhan Virus''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The outbreak turned into a [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. COVID-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent in people under 65. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the dangerous and expensive RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and [[hydroxychloroquine]].<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to COVID-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore, the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

World leaders actively hope that COVID-19 can lead to [[The Great Reset]], and are even openly calling for it in the news.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref name="theatlantic.com">[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref name="theatlantic.com">[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of COVID-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic (preventitive measure), though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so (people with heart conditions should not take hydroxychloroquine).<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfqJ1TkgP0 Donald Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine drug for Covid-19]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png WikiCommons]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai's center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

== Blood-clotting ==

[[COVID-19]] has reportedly caused increased blood clotting, which can cause strokes or heart attacks.<ref>https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid19-stroke-blood-clots-prevent-blood-thinners-virtua-troy-randle-trial-pitt-20210104.html</ref> A participant in one of the [[vaccine]] trials also suffered an unexpected heart attack at age 70, and died.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

COVID-19

2021-01-29T20:40:15Z

Sam Samson: Earlier name

<center>''See [[coronavirus]] for a more substantive explanation.''</center>
'''Coronavirus disease 2019''', or '''COVID-19''' or '''COVID-19''' or '''Chinese Virus''' or '''Wuhan Virus''', is the name of the disease caused by a novel strain of the [[coronavirus]] (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) identified as originating in [[Wuhan, China]] in late November and early December 2019.<ref>[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17], Josephine Ma, 13 Mar, 2020. www.scmp.com</ref> The outbreak turned into a [[pandemic]], reaching every continent on the planet by March 2020. Genetic mapping suggests that the Wuhan virus is related to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) of 2002 and 2003 as well as to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) of 2012 to the present. COVID-19 is considered highly infectious with an estimated basic reproduction number (R0) of 2.2. The mortality rate is described as considerably less than 1 percent in people under 65. By comparison, the mortality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.1 percent, SARS was 9 to 10 percent, and MERS was 36 percent.<ref name="Fauci">Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., "[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted]," ''New England Journal of Medicine'', March 26, 2020.</ref>

A great deal of research is being conducted on this virus. The first vaccine candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring 2020. Therapy is currently limited to supportive care. Medication in current use include the antiviral drugs lopinavir–ritonavir, interferon-1β, the dangerous and expensive RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and [[hydroxychloroquine]].<ref name="Fauci" />

Because of the [[virus]]' ability to replicate exponentially it is difficult to calculate the total number of people infected, as well as a definitive mortality rate. Quantifying total infections is hampered by the number of test kits available, as well as trained personnel to interpret the results of a novel, previously unknown, virus. The exponential rate of infections can overwhelm healthcare facilities and healthcare givers. With only experimental treatments available for a previously unknown virus, experts recommend persons with symptoms remain home so as to not infect others, or even if your symptoms are unrelated to COVID-19 you could become infected at hospitals where carriers likely are present.

Many carriers of the virus show no symptoms at all, and may never show symptoms. Social distancing, remaining at least 6 feet away from other people, is recommended to avoid infection and for an untested, [[asymptomatic]] (showing no symptoms) carrier to avoid spreading the virus. Each survivor of the virus must build immunity through antibodies. Therefore, the size of a persons initial exposure to the virus is crucial.

Ultimately, experts have stated, some 80% of the planet will be exposed to the infection between 2019 and 2021. [[Herd immunity]] eventually will develop in the human species to survive against the infection. Until a widespread vaccine becomes available in later 2020 or in 2021, practicing such basic habits as handwashing, social distancing, wearing masks to avoid spreading or catching the infection, avoid touch the mucus membranes of your mouth, nose, and eyes, and other sanitary habits are highly recommended for persons who chose to survive this global [[pandemic]].

The virus has the ability to survive on surfaces, such as door knobs, money, tables, floors, etc. Maintaining cleanliness and avoiding contact with surfaces commonly used by the general public is also recommended.

World leaders actively hope that COVID-19 can lead to [[The Great Reset]], and are even openly calling for it in the news.

== Atheistic, Chinese Communist Party and the COVID-19 pandemic ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic]]

The [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) mandates its members be [[atheists]] (see: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[militant atheism]] and [[State atheism]]).<ref>[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''</ref>

The CCP tried to cover up the emergence of the COVID-19 which prevented the pandemic being contained in its early stages.<ref name="theatlantic.com">[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>

China allowed thousands of COVID-19 infected people leave China during the early stage of the pandemic when the world was not aware of it.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-china-confronting-chinese-communist-party/ To Confront China After Coronavirus, We Must See the Bigger Picture], National Review</ref>

''The Atlantic'' reported concerning the role of the CCP to allow the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic to spread in China and globally during its early stages:
{{Cquote|China has a history of mishandling outbreaks, including SARS in 2002 and 2003. But Chinese leaders’ negligence in December and January—for well over a month after the first outbreak in Wuhan—far surpasses those bungled responses. The end of last year was the time for authorities to act, and, as Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times has noted, “act decisively they did—not against the virus, but against whistle-blowers who were trying to call attention to the public health threat.”

This is what allowed the virus to spread across the globe. Because the Chinese Communist Party was pretending that there was little to be concerned about, Wuhan was a porous purveyor of the virus. The government only instituted a lockdown in Wuhan on January 23—seven weeks after the virus first appeared. As events in Italy, the United States, Spain, and France have shown, quite a lot can happen in a week, much less seven. By then, mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that more than 5 million people had already left Wuhan.<ref name="theatlantic.com">[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/china-trolling-world-and-avoiding-blame/608332/ China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World], The Atlantic</ref>}}

==Dr. Zelenko's treatment approved for nationwide use ==
''See also:'' [[Vladimir Zelenko]] and [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

As of March 27, 2020, the most successful doctor treating coronavirus patients is [[Vladimir Zelenko]], M.D. as none of this 699 patients have died or have required intubations whereas 1.5% of U.S. coronavirus patients die.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSHM1TK5tM Vladimir Zelenko: Important March 27, 2020 update regarding my coronavirus treatment regimen]</ref> See: [[Vladimir Zelenko's coronavirus treatment]]

[[President Donald Trump]] expressed optimism that Dr. Zelenko's treatment could be expanded to meet the threat of the deadly disease during the national emergency. Several [[Democrat]] governors subsequently issued [[executive order]]s banning the treatment.<ref>https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/03/democrats-fear-cure.html</ref> On March 30, 2020, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] granted expedited approval of [[hydroxychloroquine]] nationwide for treatment of COVID-19.<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency-authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095</ref> [[War on science|Anti-science]] [[Democrat]] governors however, showing no regard for the lives of their people, resisted the FDA approved treatment.

President Trump is now taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic (preventitive measure), though he first checked with his personal physician that it was safe to do so (people with heart conditions should not take hydroxychloroquine).<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfqJ1TkgP0 Donald Trump says he takes hydroxychloroquine drug for Covid-19]</ref>

== Origin of Covid-19 virus ==
:{{See also|CCP pandemic coverup}}
Chinese students researchers indicated the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November 2019 from a place other than the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. A study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location, and then spread rapidly from market to market.<ref>https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml</ref> The Chinese Communist Party deleted the page.

===''The Lancet'' disputes CCP wet market claims===
CCP propaganda outfits announced the virus may have originated at a government laboratory only 280 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. Disease-ridden animals, including more than 600 horseshoe bats, were kept at the facility. A Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong, ''Ming Pao'', and the British daily, ''The Mirror'' explained that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, or WHCDC, could have spawned the contagion in Hubei Province. It stated that it's plausible the virus was leaked from the lab and contaminated initial patients in this epidemic. Sen. [[Tom Cotton]], citing ''The Lancet'', tweeted
{{quotebox|China claimed—for almost two months—that coronavirus had originated in a Wuhan seafood market. That is not the case. @TheLancet published a study demonstrating that of the original 40 cases, 14 of them had no contact with the seafood market, including Patient Zero.<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tom-cotton-implies-coronavirus-originated-in-wuhan-super-laboratory</ref>}}
This suggests that there was an earlier source of the virus that is unrelated to the seafood market and that has not yet been traced. If this theory is correct, the infection originated no later than November and infected the seafood market in December. The case histories and the pattern of infection were known to Chinese researchers from the beginning, so earlier reports fingering the market may have been intentionally misleading.<ref>Cohen, Jon, "[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally]," ''Science'', Jan. 26, 2020.</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'', which routinely publishes Chinese Communist [[propaganda]], blasted Sen. Cotton over his comments.<ref>https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/washington-post-uses-chinese-propaganda-in-attempt-to-blast-sen-tom-cotton-over-coronavirus-comments/</ref>

On February 6, 2020 scientists from the South China University of Technology uploaded a paper on the origins of Coronavirus:
{{quotebox|The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory…… The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market.<ref>http://archive.is/ATNpb</ref>}}
China's leftwing censors however deleted the content.<ref>https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831465/posts</ref>

===Dr. Li issues public warning===
[[Dr. Li Wenliang]] was an ophthalmologist in [[Wuhan, China]] who became a [[whistleblower]] and victim of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). Efforts by Dr. Li to alert the Chinese people to the danger of the [[CCP coronavirus]] in late December 2019, and his subsequent death 5 weeks later did not go unpunished. Dr. Li has been elevated to the status of saint and folk hero among the Chinese people.

On December 30, 2019 Dr. Li posted the lab test result of a coronavirus patient in a group chat to a class of about 150 students writing:
{{Quotebox|“7 cases of SARS have been confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market and they were isolated in the emergency department of our hospital. Please tell your families to take preventative measures.”}}
Some doctors confirmed that healthcare workers were starting to become infected around this time, a significant sign that the virus could spread between humans. Health officials in Wuhan were alerted. Instead of ramping up safety measures and alerting the public, on the same day they issued a notice forbidding all medical institutes or individuals from disclosing any information regarding the new disease. At midnight, Dr. Li was summoned by the CCP Security Police. They questioned him about why he was spreading rumors online.

On December 31, Wuhan's health commission posted an announcement about the outbreak on their website. They confirmed 27 cases of the infection and said there was no evidence that the disease was contagious among humans. According to a research paper written by Chinese officials, which was published later, the number of virus cases had reached at least 105 by the end of 2019. At that point, 15 people had already died. A media report also showed that one major hospital in Wuhan, Xiehe Hospital, was forced to transform an entire floor of the facility into “quarantine space for contagious disease.” [[Taiwan]] officials notified the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) that the virus was being spread from human-to-human.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/20/who-taiwan-coronavirus-warning/</ref> Communist party officials in China and military personnel began taking preventative measures, however the public was never alerted.

====8 doctors arrested for issuing public warnings====
On January 3, 2020 Dr. Li was asked to sign a confession to charges of committing [[crime]]s against the [[leftist]] regime, spreading “illegal and false” information and that he had “severely disrupted social order.” 7 other doctors also were charged. The confesion read:
{{quotebox|"On December 30, 2019, WeChat group "Clinical Wuhan University 04" issued untrue statements about 7 cases of SARS diagnosed in the South China fruit and seafood market. Now raise warnings and admonitions according to law on the illegal issue of untrue statements on the [[Internet]]. Your behavior severely disrupts social order. Your behavior has exceeded the scope permitted by [[law]], and it violates the relevant provisions of the Law of the [[People's Republic of China]] on Public Security Management Penalties, which is an [[illegal]] act! The public security organ hopes that you will actively cooperate with your work, follow the advice of the [[police]], and stop the illegal behavior. can you do it? Answer: Yes We hope that you calm down and reflect carefully, and solemnly warn you: if you are stubborn, do not think about [[repentance]], and continue to carry out illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! do you understand? Answer: understand"<ref>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E6%9D%8E%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%9A%84%E8%AE%AD%E8%AF%AB%E4%B9%A6.png File:李文亮的训诫书.png WikiCommons]</ref>}}

====CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins cover up ====
On December 31, 2019 the CCP controlled Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declared, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.<ref>https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IzzCnz4Yr2jEIYZePiu_ow</ref><ref>[[User:RobSmith/Text of article censored by Google translate]]</ref>

The CCP employed standard [[technocrat]]ic and [[bureaucrat]]ic rhetoric to qualm public fears:
{{quotebox|Twenty-seven cases have been found , of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions. At present, all cases have been isolated for treatment, follow-up investigations and medical observations of close contacts are ongoing, and hygiene investigations and environmental sanitation disposals for South China Seafood City are ongoing.

Wuhan organized the consultation of clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts in Tongji Hospital, Provincial Center for Disease Control, [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]], Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and other units, and the experts returned from the disease and treatment, Epidemiological investigation, preliminary laboratory tests and other aspects of the situation analysis that the above cases are viral pneumonia. The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.}}
Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai's center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”<ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3044050/mystery-illness-hits-chinas-wuhan-city-nearly-30-hospitalised</ref>

====WHO collusion with CCP====
[[File:WHO-CCP Wuhan virus.PNG|right|300px|thumb|The WHO tweeted misinformation from the Chinese Communist Party that the world had nothing to fear from the coronavirus outbreak.]]
Li was ordered to return to work where he contracted the virus. On January 6, 2020 the center for disease control in [[Shanghai]] acquired the complete gene sequencing of the new virus. They found over 89 percent similarity between the new virus and the deadly SARS virus that caused a pandemic in 2003. The information was sent to China's national CDC in an internal document. From January 6 to January 17, CCP officials reported zero new cases. In the 11 day period the communist authorities in Wuhan City and Hubei Province held their most important annual political meetings. Over 2,000 “representatives of the people” gathered to discuss the “amazing achievements of 2019” and how 2020 will be “a tremendous and promising year.” There was little mention of the coronavirus. On January 14 the [[World Health Organization]] [[tweet]]ed,
{{Quotebox|"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan #China<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/18/flashback-who-china-coronavirus-contagious/</ref>}}
The same day a group of [[Hong Kong]] journalists accompanied Hong Kong experts who were invited to conduct research on the virus outbreak. The reporters were later detained by Chinese Security Police, who photographed their reporter IDs and asked them to delete all footage taken inside hospitals.

At this same time a post on the Chinese [[social media]] site Weibo, a person's dad was confirmed to have viral pneumonia. But the Xiehe Hospital in Wuhan refused to admit the father due to a shortage of hospital beds. Another netizen posted that his entire family was infected. They went to the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan and saw that “there were so many patients that some had to lie on the floor of the corridor.” His father was also sent home to self-quarantine because there weren't enough hospital beds. The post was later deleted. So were all other posts in the user's account.<ref>https://www.ntd.com/a-timeline-of-events-leading-up-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china_442592.html</ref> That was the week Wuhan authorities didn't report a single confirmed or suspected case.

From January 12 to 16, an estimated 3 million passengers left Wuhan by train over the Chinese New Year holiday, to visit family and friends in other cities in China. On January 17, 2020 Wuhan's tourism bureau issued over 200,000 free tourism tickets. It was an effort to entice people to visit the city so they could experience the “Chinese style and warm sentiments of Wuhan.” On January 18, Baibuting, a populous district in Wuhan, held an annual banquet to celebrate the Lunar New Year holiday. Three days before, staff from the neighborhood committee who were concerned about the outbreak asked if they could cancel the banquet, but communist officials denied the request. Over 40,000 families attended the banquet. Local communist apparatchiks ordered labs to stop testing for the virus and destroy the existing samples.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRagZsnEc2Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

World Health Organization (WHO) boss [[Tadros Adhanom]] was a leader in [[Ethiopia]]'s Tigray People's Liberation Front, a wing of the ruling [[Marxist]] Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. Adhanom served the repressive regime as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2016 after a stint as Health Minister. As a candidate for the top post, ''The New York Times'' accused Tad Adhanom of covering up at least three [[epidemic]]s.<ref>http://archive.is/9B2Zy</ref>

The Communist regime did not allow the WHO into China until February 10, 2020 - more than two months after the first cases were observed.
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/asia/wuhan-coronavirus-update-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>

Researchers have identified a "tipping point" at which the virus goes from dangerous to deadly in extremely susceptible patients. A WHO report written 18 days later based on observation in China stated that 80% of infections ("mild cases") can self-isolate, 13% require hospitalization, and 6% require intensive care. While many patients experience nothing more than a mild cold, one in seven patients develops difficulty breathing and other "severe" complications, while 6% become critically ill and require hospitalization to stabilize their condition, risking death if they can't receive the highest level of care.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/scientists-warn-about-dangerous-tipping-point-where-covid-19-goes-mild-deadly</ref> Some questions remain regarding whether the developed world has enough hospital beds available to treat cases requiring hospitalization. WHO said the coronavirus ''infection rate'' (as opposed to death rate) was thought to be the same as the flu when the virus was only known in China but has since been found to be ''two to three times that infectious''.<ref>https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-raises-death-rate-and-risk-of-coronavirus-one-expert-declares-wwii/</ref>

Tad Adhamon criticized travel bans to and from China saying, "There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade." The WHO was not allowed into China until February 10, 2020, more than two months after the virus was first discovered. Adhanom praised the CCP's response: "We appreciate the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated," and "China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response." Film clips of Adhanom are shown on Chinese television saying, "China took action massively at the epicenter at the source of the outbreak. This is heroic. The actions of China is making us safer."

Peter Humphrey, a British investigator who was jailed in China in 2013 had been drugged, chained to a chair, locked in a cage and made to read out a statement written by the police in front of cameras. The anchor who presented the footage, James Chao, is now a goodwill ambassador with the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization is horribly corrupt. An audit revealed there has been a surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the
organization with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body, overwhelming an internal team of full-time investigators. An ''[[Associated Press]]'' expose in 2017 found that nearly half of the WHO two billion dollar budget went to first-class airfare and five-star hotels. The United States is the largest contributor US taxpayers fund about a quarter of the WHO budget. The WHO is working with [[Google]] to ensure that people get information from the [[UN]] health agency first when they search for information about the virus.

====Dr. Li's exoneration and death====
On January 20 [[President Xi]] finally acknowledged the crisis.<ref>https://thecritic.co.uk/the-coronavirus-cover-up/</ref> On January 23 the entire city of Wuhan, 11 million people, was put on lockdown. By the end of the month 50 million Chinese were on lockdown. On January 28, the Supreme Court of the Communist Party of China issued a statement that Dr. Li and the other "rumor makers" had been "rectified", but it was too late.

On the evening of February 6, Dr. Li died. The news quickly aroused strong attention and condemnation. However, Wuhan Central Hospital later issued a microblog saying that Li Wenliang was in critical condition and doctors were working to save his life. A number of insiders and doctors disclosed on social media that in the process, the authorities faced public indignation and ordered a series of attempts at resuscitation, but to no avail. A few hours later, the news of Li Wenliang's death again was released and detonated on WeChat and Weibo. By 6 a.m. local time, the keywords " Dr. Li Wenliang's death " and "Li Wenliang's death" ranked high on the Weibo topic list, with a total of 670 million views and 737,000 discussions.<ref>https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/07/a102771379.html</ref> Before the end of the day news of Dr. Li's death had over 1.5 billion views on Weibo.<ref>https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-chinese-public-mourns-rages-over-death-of-doctor-who-raised-early-alarm</ref> An announcement on NTD of Dr. Li's death read:
{{quotebox| [NTD Beijing, February 07, 2020] Dr. Wenliang Li , who first announced Wuhan pneumonia, died at the age of 34 on the evening of the 6th due to improper treatment of a new coronavirus infection. His death ignited a new wave of angry tsunami among the public over the CCP's concealment. After Li Wenliang's death was exposed on the [[Internet]], the authorities, under pressure from public opinion, pretended to rescue the whole person, and performed 3 hours of chest compressions and electric shocks on the dead Li Wenliang, causing his ribs to be completely broken and beyond recognition . 

On February 7th, an independent economist, "Financial Cold Eye" (@charles984681), tweeted that the hospital director was afraid that Li Wenliang's death would lead to public outrage. After 3 hours of death, he was continuously subjected to CPR, which is the shock of cardiac resuscitation. It usually takes only a few minutes. After three hours, Li Wenliang's ribs were completely broken and beyond recognition . Tweeted that
*"Dr. Li was wronged alive, and he was abused after his death! With the worst of malice, I can't imagine how despicable this devil behavior is." 

In this regard, many netizens have commented: 
*"Too evil!" 
*"Under the autocratic system, the people of Li Min are nothing but the servants of the nobles." 
*"It is most likely a premeditated murder. This person has become a serious trouble for the nobles!" 

In addition, many network screenshots showed that Li Wenliang's treatment was extremely inadequate and timely, and the hospital director was under pressure. Li Wenliang was the worst one among the eight. Li Wenliang's lung film, all white! I never thought about letting him live! This man will be regarded as a hero in the United States! He was killed directly in the CCP! His wife ’s unborn child was also hit!

It is reported that Li Wenliang stopped his heartbeat at 9:30 and was intubated 20 minutes later. Finally, he went to ECMO (artificial lung) for a symbolic rescue to calm the anger of hundreds of millions of netizens. CCP officials have been rebuked as "political rescue.".....

There was a regret on the Internet that "the hero is gone", and lamented, angered, and rebuked the CCP "this regime has committed [[crimes against humanity]]!"

*"Burning !!! Doctor Li Wenliang died at the age of 34, leaving his wife and unborn child. Wuhan government, Hubei government, don't you give an explanation? Without heart, as human beings, the TAs are just humans! See At the time of this news, do you have any trace of guilt and regret for those "killers" who indirectly kill people? "

*"This time, the doctor who first warned the Chinese and the world and informed you of the epidemic was sacrificed today. He is Li Wenliang. After the epidemic was announced, he and several other doctors were arrested by the public security ... With the incident exposed, the Chinese government must Do n’t apologize. The official said it was because of the infection, and we have reason to suspect how he died? "

Password of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

It is said that the magnitude of the rebound [public reaction] has unexpectedly surprised the CCP, and the CCP propaganda department has issued a password.

Independent economist Qin Peng tweeted that the official propaganda requirements of the CCP came out as soon as possible.

*"Regarding the death of Dr. Li Wenliang of Wuhan Central Hospital, we must strictly standardize the source [control the narrative] of the manuscript. We are strictly forbidden to use media reports to report without permission. We must not pop-up the window, do not comment or speculate. Search and strictly control harmful information. "

Qin Peng said that if it were not for the life-threatening plague, how many Chinese people could not imagine the evil of the Chinese Communist Party!<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/f0pmw8/rumored_dr_li_wenliangs_ribs_were_completely/</ref> }}

===Illegal bioweapon research in Wuhan===
One theory that has recently been postulated is that the coronavirus may be linked to Chinese bio-weapons research.<ref>https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2020-01-24-virus-hit-wuhan-has-two-laboratories-linked-to-chinese-bio-warfare-program/?pname=local_social&keyid=KTRH&sc=editorial</ref> The city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, has the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where "''...it was reported to have studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, the H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue''".<ref>http://www.tibetanreview.net/did-the-wuhan-virus-escape-from-chinas-bio-weapons-lab/</ref> A second facility nearby, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, is also listed one of eight research facilities under the 1985 Biological Weapons Convention, of which China is a signatory.

Dr Francis Boyle is an eminent professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in the U.S. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, Dr Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, gave a detailed statement on how the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knew about it.<ref>https://greatgameindia.com/dr-francis-boyle-creator-of-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-is-biological-warfare-weapon/</ref>

The State Department issued a report in 2019 stating "''Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC."''<ref>https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Compliance-Report-2019-August-19-Unclassified-Final.pdf</ref> For its part, China has stated that it does not engage in bio-weapons engineering,<ref>https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/biological/</ref> despite discussion of bio and genetic weapons being discussed at the highest levels of the Chinese military,<ref>https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-military-biotech-frontier-crispr-military-civil-fusion-and-the-new-revolution-in-military-affairs/</ref> as well as a "white paper" drafted in 2001 which stressed ''"...in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC, a necessary verification mechanism should be established"''.<ref>https://media.nti.org/pdfs/5a_1.pdf</ref>

[[India]]n researchers have found [[HIV]]-derived inserts in the coronavirus [[genome]] that compound the infectious potential and greatly bolster the argument this virus was developed as a bioterror weapon. A 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment by [[John Brennan]] and the US [[Intelligence Community]] lists China as a major potential “terror actor” and genome editing as a major terror risk.<ref>https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/01/coronavirus-the-plot-thickens/</ref>

Many have expressed skepticism of the bio-weapon theory. Dr Malcolm Davis, a defense analyst in Australia, tweeted ''"If evidence came to the fore to support such a theory, then yes - but so far, none has. Its more likely the virus jumped from an animal into humans in the Wuhan markets."''.<ref>https://m.noosanews.com.au/news/mystery-lab-30km-from-virus-ground-zero/3931000/</ref> New organizations - many left-leaning - have also stated that conspiracy theories have been created almost as soon as the news of the pandemic reached the public.<ref>https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-china-lab-mortality-virology-wuhan-virus-not-bioweapon/</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-51271037</ref>

===Early cover story===
:{{See also|CCP propaganda war}}
On January 23, 2020 the Wuhan virus exploded. While Wuhan announced the lockdown of the city, Dr. [[Shi Zhengli]] of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who had isolated the bat virus, spliced it, and made it transmissible to humans, provided the official Chinese communist cover story that the virus arose in nature. Shi published a paper in the authoritative science journal, ''Nature'' on February 3, 2020 stating that the Wuhan coronavirus was of probable bat origin.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7</ref> The paper indicated that the Wuhan virus utilized the same key as SARS to gain entry into the human body. She also announced the 2019-nCoV genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in [[Yunnan]], China, called RaTG13, signaling a natural source of the Wuhan virus.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/24/study-china-lied-wuhan-virus-did-not-originate-in-meat-market/</ref>

The ''Washington Post'' picked up the Chinese fake news narrative and indicated "The trigger point for the current coronavirus remains unclear, but [[China]] has linked the outbreak to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which despite its name also appeared to be selling live cats and dogs, wild chickens, snakes and marmots."<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-outbreak-underscores-potential-health-risks-in-chinas-wild-animal-trade/2020/01/25/5f5353be-3f6f-11ea-971f-4ce4f94494b4_story.html Coronavirus outbreak underscores potential health risks in China’s wild animal trade], ''Washington Post'', 2020</ref> CNN reported concerning China: "Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals including rodents, yak, snakes and even porcupines, and experts say that makes them far more dangerous. The meat could contain deadly pathogens like the coronavirus."<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/world/coronavirus-china-bans-wildlife-trade-trnd/index.html Chinese officials crack down on wildlife markets as coronavirus outbreak nears 3,000 cases]</ref>

"Wet market" refers to the blood of animals slain on the spot. The first case can be traced back to November 17, 2019, and the first death on December 9, 2019. Some cases were rumored among stallholders from the Wuhan South China Seafood Market in early December but hushed up by Chinese authorities.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBxZ1XIYmGc&feature=push-prem-sub&attr_tag=Pi2j7UuDGqgDAixI%3A6</ref> This market is said to have sold processed meats and live animals, including chickens, donkeys, sheep, pigs, foxes, badgers, bamboo rats, hedgehogs, and snakes.<ref>"[https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1#the-huanan-wholesale-seafood-market-in-wuhan-closed-on-january-1-after-it-was-found-to-be-the-most-likely-starting-point-for-the-outbreak-of-this-coronavirus-called-2019-ncov-1 The outbreaks of both the Wuhan coronavirus and SARS likely started in Chinese wet markets. Photos show what the markets look like.]", ''Business Insider''</ref>

CNN kept the ball rolling for Chinese propagandists reporting that previous coronavirus outbreaks include SARS-CoV in 2002-2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012. Both of these strains originated in bats. SARS was transferred to humans through a masked palm civet, presumably in a Chinese wet market. MERS was transferred through a camel in Saudi Arabia. The protein codes in the Wuhan virus are most similar to those found in snakes, so it is possible that the virus jumped to humans from a snake. Snakes often hunt bats for food, but disease rarely transmits from a warm-blooded animal to a cold-blooded animal.<ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/22/health/snakes-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-conversation-partner/index.html Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak]," CNN, January 24, 2020.</ref>

== Blood-clotting ==

[[COVID-19]] has reportedly caused increased blood clotting, which can cause strokes or heart attacks.<ref>https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid19-stroke-blood-clots-prevent-blood-thinners-virtua-troy-randle-trial-pitt-20210104.html</ref> A participant in one of the [[vaccine]] trials also suffered an unexpected heart attack at age 70, an died.
==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Coronavirus}}
[[Category:Coronavirus]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2021-01-29T20:38:35Z

Sam Samson: Grammatical correction

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=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><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=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 the left-leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the omission of the term. 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>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com"/>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterward, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When the Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''the Wikipedia community is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is more than two times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote in the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly, there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time-consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterward'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>https://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolerate any derogatory liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to back up the claim. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
# Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
# Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
# Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labeled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
# Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
# Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
# Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
# Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref name="aina.org">http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref name="aina.org"/> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
# A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
# Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a tamer "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
# For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed, and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and a sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth-tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
# Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia, and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created an article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris in February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that an editor who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The editor in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20200506161221/https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>
# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on that<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, [[Wikipedia]]'s article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>
# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded that President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia editors censored several examples of left-wing violence, including [[Antifa]]'s attack on [[Andy Ngo]] and a violent anti-ICE attack in Tacoma.<ref>Adler, T.D. (July 18, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/ Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 18, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia's treatment of the [[Ukrainian collusion]] adhered to Democrat talking points.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/30/wikipedia-transcribes-democrats-spin-in-article-on-trump-ukraine-call/ Wikipedia Transcribes Democrats’ Spin in Article on Trump-Ukraine Call]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 30, 2019.</ref>

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

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2021-01-29T20:36:12Z

Sam Samson:

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=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><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&direction=next&oldid=28008851</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=28389633</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=prev&oldid=29473068</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&diff=next&oldid=30347744</ref>
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=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 the left-leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the omission of the term. 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>
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</ref>
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</ref>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref>) After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref name="huffingtonpost.com">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref name="huffingtonpost.com"/>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterward, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was criticized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When the Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''the Wikipedia community is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is more than two times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote in the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles—perhaps over half its website—are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopædia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>https://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly, there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time-consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterward'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>https://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolerate any derogatory liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to back up the claim. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
# Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
# Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
# Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labeled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
# Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
# Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
# Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
# Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref name="aina.org">http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref name="aina.org"/> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
# A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
# Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a tamer "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
# For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed, and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>
# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and a sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth-tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.
# Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
#Given the cult-like nature of the Wikipedia editing corps, direct criticism of Wikipedia on its own pages is difficult. In 2010, a documentary film "Truth in Numbers?" depicted [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia, and its many problems. The Wikipedia article covering the film,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Numbers%3F&oldid=602614868</ref> was repeatedly vandalized and nominated for deletion five different times.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_in_Numbers%3F_%285th_nomination%29</ref>
# [[District of Columbia]] Councilman [[Jack Evans]] was banned for 48 hours after trying to edit his Wikipedia biography to clean up what he considered to be a biased article.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/08/15/jack-evans-wikipedia-vandal/|title=Jack Evans, Wikipedia Vandal?|date=August 15, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|work=Washington City Paper|first=Will|last=Sommer}}</ref>
# A group of editors created an article with the title "List of Wikipedia controversies" which collected various problems in chronological order. Wikipedia administrators tried to delete the article and failed and then took the article to Deletion Review without success. Administrator Prioryman then classified the article as being within the scope of WikiProject Scientology, so that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions would apply to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=551950947|title=Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref> Prioryman then resisted removal of the designation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=552002501&oldid=552002453|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=552004197|title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|date=April 24, 2013|accessdate=November 27, 2014}}</ref>
# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>
# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>
# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris in February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that an editor who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The editor in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20200506161221/https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>
# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on that<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>
# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia editors censored several examples of left-wing violence, including [[Antifa]]'s attack on [[Andy Ngo]] and a violent anti-ICE attack in Tacoma.<ref>Adler, T.D. (July 18, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/ Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 18, 2019.</ref>
# Wikipedia's treatment of the [[Ukrainian collusion]] adhered to Democrat talking points.<ref>Adler, T.D. (September 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/30/wikipedia-transcribes-democrats-spin-in-article-on-trump-ukraine-call/ Wikipedia Transcribes Democrats’ Spin in Article on Trump-Ukraine Call]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 30, 2019.</ref>

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

User:Sam Samson

2021-01-29T20:34:04Z

Sam Samson: Created page with "This is an alternate of User:SamSamson as a login bug has forever locked me out of it."

This is an alternate of [[User:SamSamson]] as a login bug has forever locked me out of it.