Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

Latest revision as of 07:49, August 31, 2025

Validity of claims of Evolution page bias

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..."

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --Andrew1123 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? Sjay 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO)

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

I'm sorry - and you are?

20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎

20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)

Do you have any interest here other than this issue?

Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his personality for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:

"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."

Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!

Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.

Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Jinxmchue 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: Religion of Barack Obama. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Gothic architecture

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. ELeger 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. Chris3145 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit Christianity. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--Andy Schlafly 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?Chris3145 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Drudge Bias

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, news aggregators, are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter pundits in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. RobertWDP 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that at this point in time and on each of those articles, there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a news aggregator who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while pundits who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. Iamchipdouglas 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Organizing instances in order of severity?

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --Benp 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. Breithaupt 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you as well!

Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! Kriegerdwm 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwmKriegerdwm 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. Breithaupt 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--FredCorps 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Why do they do it?

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the reason Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. LoganBertram 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)

I originally started editing Wikipedia about 8 months after Ed Poor, Logan. Under my original account name I racked up about double the edits than I have made to CP. What you say might have been true the first year or two of Wikipedia's existence, but certainly it is no longer true. Anyone with a liberal bias (which accounts to 90% of the administrators) and 75% of the editors, has a distinct advantage, even using acceptable sources, as the liberal-thinkers there will offer their own conflicting sources and through the device of "consensus" simply out-vote the more conservative users. If you really believe what you say, make an account under another name, edit everything from a conservative point of view, and watch the high-jinx ensue. I don't think you will be happy with the results.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:27, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

I tried adding to a Talk page once. Noted that Peter Daszak had continued to fund "gain of function" research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WiV) even after it had been banned in 2014 (per the grant description). Also noted that Daszak had originated the letter claiming COVID-19 couldn't have escaped from WiV (per the story showing his own emails). I felt I was charitable by suggesting a "controversies" section. My suggestions were censored - from a Talk page! When I complained about being censored I was permanently banned for - get this - clearly not being there to create an encyclopedia. So while I appreciate your claims and input, I can attest your final line is simply not true. JocelynBey1

"Non-encyclopedic" is the catchall to get rid of somebody you don't like or a troll. Even here at CP - the alternative to Wikipedia, have adopted it. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:43, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

Cassie Bernall

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, before the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. TaKess 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. TaKess 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So you are saying that Wikipedia does admit she was murdered by an atheist? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. TaKess 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Negative Words

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are being used. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --Carceous 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

I largely agree with Carceous. My opinion has always been that it is more effective to present facts of what happened (kinda like Tucker Carlson) rather than express negative opinions (kinda like Sean Hannity). Readers and listeners form their own opinions. I fully understand the desire to call the *#@## that wikipedia engages in *#@## and sometimes do so myself. But I feel it is not as effective. JocelynBey1

Racistpedia

I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. JonG^{Tennisu no Boifriendo} 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. Breithaupt 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--Andy Schlafly 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. Breithaupt 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal double standard: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--Andy Schlafly 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

It's not just Wikipedia. Mark Twain was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word nigger nearly 1,000 times in Huckleberry Finn. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's Uncle Tom, but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? Chris3145 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Cover up

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [1] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? Breithaupt 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

This ref [2] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [3]--Jpatt 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Messy

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

o3o

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. KnightOfTheNightKnightOfTheNight

Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). Jinx McHue 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Concealing facts

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as scientists with a religious motivation? --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

a question

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. Euaaan 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.Euaaan 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia because it has liberal bias and gossip.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Euaaan, I tried editing the wiki talk page on Peter Daszak to mention that he had engaged in continuing funding of gain of function research after Obama's 2014 ban (per the grant description found on-line), and that he had drafted and originated the journal "letter" claiming COVID-19 could not possibly, never ever, have come from a lab (per the emails also on-line), even claiming he had no competing interests. I felt I was being charitable putting these in a section labeled "controversies." It was reverted and re-reverte. All this for a talk page suggestion! When I complained about censorship I was permanently banned. So no, I don't agree with you at all. Look at the pages on most controversial American issues and you'll see their is a clear bias on page after page. Look at my example of how I was treated and you'll see why. --Jocelyn Bey

You need to understand the "national security concerns" as to why this happened or happens. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:50, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

Jim Pouillon

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: Jim Pouillon

I beg to differ

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like? I am willing to debate about this. --Arno Sluismans 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.

I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.

I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.

Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the Evolution page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?

Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--Arno Sluismans 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our Evolution and Carbon dating pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our Liberal Style article. JohnFraiser 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

John Fraiser, the Liberal Style is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.

I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--Arno Sluismans 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the radiometric dating, not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the global warming fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--Andy Schlafly 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

"None even exist off the shores of the United States.... "

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. PeterF 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)

I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. PeterF 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious placement bias? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--Andy Schlafly 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)

You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. PeterF 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. PeterF 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. MichaelZ 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah."

[4]

Worth including?

--Benp 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)

You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus _Discussion 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --Benp 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Possible Bias

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. MichaelZ 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Wind turbine line

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states: 'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--Andy Schlafly 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Hans Bethe and SDI

Links:

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --Rubashov 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --Rubashov 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --Rubashov 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

More generally, it's a liberal trick to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on Conservapedia:Lenski dialog should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of Lenski's work and wrote the following...."

PhilG 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

No, we don't overrely on "experts", see best of the public. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--Andy Schlafly 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Stats?

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. DWiggins 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of accuracy on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--JackTennant 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I also think this page could be looked at: [5] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--JackTennant 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of 8 times as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--JackTennant 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. Decora 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example?

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

Newton 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? Decora 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you Conservapedia

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trvl2much (talk) -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. conservative 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Too long!

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. Ctown200 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. Ctown200 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

It's been several months since I posted this, and I was able to break up most of the article into smaller articles. I don't get to conservapedia much these days: frankly I prefer being on Wikipedia and trying to thwart their libral agenda. So I'm asking: can someone else please help to split this article into smaller articles, in the same manner that I did this? I'd really like to see this completed. Ctown200 14:07, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

Vladimir Lenin

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? msirois 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the communists poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--Andy Schlafly 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

#12 - Not a good example

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.BobMack 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [6]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [7] Thanks. BobMack 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

"Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels

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. (about as "radical left wing" as you can get.) Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe an extremely radical left-wing group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink
--CenterRight
21:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Superb example. Could you go ahead and add it as the top of the content entry here?--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 27 December 2010 (EST)

I am *really* new here (first attempt at posting) I am not following what you mean regarding "top of the content entry"--CenterRight 21:32, 27 December 2010 (EST)

It's because Wikipedia abandoned their one, primary rule: Neutral Point of View. We know it, they know it. Karajou 21:27, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Gatekeepers removing Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters from lists of Progressives who have served in U. S. Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Last year, I added Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine waters to the list of notable current/former Congress members who were progressives. My original addition lasted a few months, then were removed without explanation. I re-added them a couple weeks ago, and editors started immediately removing. I brought up issue on the Discussion page, where I included iron-clad quotes of Obama and Clinton describing themselves as progressives, and noted that Waters has been in the Progressive caucus since the 1990's. I am now in an edit war with leftist editors desperately trying to keep those three names off the list.--CenterRight 18:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Jared Loughner

Hello, Just an observation, Wikipedia does refer to Loughner as a "nihilistic atheist". I feel that his entry should be reworded to reflect how Wikipedia glosses over the fact that this attributed to his actions. Just thinking aloud. EricAlstrom 20:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)

It appears to me that Wikipedia added "nihilistic" only after we criticized it here. The history file on Wikipedia shows that it was an addition late today, and you might be interested in checking the precise timing.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

That's a great observation Andy! It's very pleasing to see that finally the conservative voice is being heard by the liberals at wikipedia. DanielG 21:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Gender bias and netball

I edited the entries regarding netball and gender email lists under gender bias a bit to attempt to make them more accurate as to what happened at WP. The banned WP editor wasn't banned for his edits on the article, he was banned for attempting to "out" an editor to her supposed real-life employer and for harassment. I also removed individual editors' names because it doesn't really matter who did the edits, just that they occurred.

Out of Date Examples

Considering how long this list has been around and how extensive it is, there are naturally a few claims that aren't necessarily correct anymore. I found two- 34 and 35, which are about the articles "North American Union" and "Eritrea". I was going to correct it but the spam filter won't allow it. I suspect that there also may be a few other examples that have gone out of date, I think the list might need to be refreshed a bit.--Pencil 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST)

The "F" word appears 7,000 times.

...and the "J" word ("Jesus") appears 47,959 times! ScottDG 09:37, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps, but do you think that word belongs in an encyclopedia at all?--James Wilson 10:02, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Yes. It exists, it has a history, people use it. It belongs in an encyclopedia as much as do other unsavory words/ideas such as "murder." ScottDG 10:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)

It has as much educational value as toilet water. The number for "F" is 32,000+ if you select all search fields. Biased toward the lowest common denominator. --Jpatt 10:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Jpatt said it well. Wikipedia is rife with anti-intellectual bickering and habitual swearing.--James Wilson 17:31, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Experts?

"Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[73]

I'm a bit confused about this. Thus is it arguing that Wikipedia adopts a Best of the Public approach? HumanGeographer 11:46, 23 December 2011 (EST)

I've just had a flick through the rest of these - this article is absolutely ridiculous and half of them should be removed simply on common sense. HumanGeographer 11:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Redundancy

Why is there such a vast amount of examples under "General/Uncategorized"? The point that Wikipedia is left-leaning is very quickly proven; there is no reason to have 60+ examples. DynaboyJ 15:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)

If there are duplicate examples, feel free to delete them. This page is not protected. As for not having too many examples, as an encyclopedia, it is necessary that we list all new biases in Wikipedia; indeed, we must continuously show that Wikipedia is biased by having plenty of fresh examples. NickP 15:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)

It's just that most of the examples are informal and rude (calling policies "silly" multiple times) and seems to bash Wikipedia just out of spite. DynaboyJ 16:03, 30 December 2011 (EST)

The General/Uncategorized, by my understanding, is not supposed to be there. People should move it to the right page. I worked on this a bit a few months ago. I'm back now. Will try to do more. RickTx 16:46, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Ethnocentrism

Hey,

Have you guys taken a look at the ethnocentrism category on Wikipedia? They have labeled "American exceptionalism" under the category of ethnocentrism and they label it as "nationalism" and are very biased against the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethoncentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/category:ethoncentrism. You will find American exceptionalism listed there. Among other things I noticed on Wikipedia. They label Creationism under the category of denialism. They have a creation myths category on there, where they label Creationism as a myth. I'm sure that would of interest to you people.

They label Creation Science under the category of Pseudoscience. Are you paying attention? How come none of this stuff has been talked about?

Page organization

How about pushing the misc. examples into a separate subpage and then moving the three best examples from each subpage back to the main example list? I suspect most users will just go to the misc. examples and not read the better examples just because they have been sorted by subject matter. Wschact 09:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Sounds great. Pleaes improve as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

I am starting but it will take a bit of time to do correctly. Thanks, Andy. Wschact 23:38, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Any comments or feedback? Wschact 23:42, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Far-left far-right politics

Hey guys, have you guys checked out the articles promoting the far-left's dismantling of society as if it is a legitimate cause? Have you seen the far-right politics article that basically paints the far-right as supremacist and hierarchical and bigoted, while it praises far-left politics and even supports their radical destruction if society and supporting anarchy by dismantling the social structure and creating anarchy and destroying the "supremacist" and painting those who want a socially-structured society as "Far-right" in typical communist language. While failing to mention the black-supremacist politics common on the far-left, their Islamic supremacist politics and presents far-left politics as a healthy and balanced form of politics. They present the fringe left ideals of dismantling and destroying social structures and actively promote far-left politics, while "denigrating" far-right politics by proclaiming them "extremists" and in favor of social oppression, racism, supremacist politics that involve race and a society where a balanced social structure and healthy and socially normal society is presented as a "far-right" hierarchial ideal, while failing to mention the racism on the far-left, its supremacist anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian politics, its hatred against Israel, its hate rallies calling for killing Bush. Nope, far-left politics good, far-right (our politics of regular conservatives smeared as "far-right" by Wikipedia. Check out those two articles about far-right politics and far-left politics and you'll see what I am talking about.

Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia

I edited Wikipedia to fix a few of the issues mentioned on this page and subpages (for example, adding the official picture of Sally Kern); should the fixed issues just be removed from this page, or should they be edited to say that Wikipedia used to have these issues before they were fixed in response to being mentioned here? --GRuban 14:15, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

In my opinion I think that the individual issues should stay here, but with the added caveat that they were addressed and corrected on such-and-such date. Karajou 14:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Agreed. Then maybe readers can see how long the bias lasts without correction. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:45, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

That is why it is important to use permalinks when citing to Wikipedia. I believe that examples should remain on these pages. But if an example is fixed after a short period, we may consider moving it to the subpage and replacing it with another example from that subpage which has not yet been fixed. Thanks, Wschact 10:39, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

New example for you

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh

--Joshua Zambrano 11:40, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

My Own Case

I have an unusual case. I was reviewing the particulars of what happened with my Wikipedia ban. I may be the only editor in Wikipedia history to have been indefinitely banned for over 4 years because I fixed a typo. I think my case may prove to be one of the strongest examples of Wikipedia bias because there ultimately was no justification for the ban.

1. Claims that I'd "edit warred" were actually caused by my being lured into an edit war over fixing a typo.[8] The controversial edit I made[9] was in actuality just a typo fix, the word was wrong given the Gallup source. This was discussed here.[10] UltraExactzz realized I was being falsely accused of an edit war and reversed the ban. User:NeutralHomer furthermore attempted to force an edit war over added template warnings to my talk page which I considered a violation of WP:HUSH, I should have the right to delete warnings posted to my page.[11]

2. A community topic ban was reimposed by the same editor who opposed my edits in the first place, while falsely claiming consensus.[12] JzG was the same editor who opposed my edits and tried to get me in trouble for them months earlier.[13] In actuality the so-called "consensus" was reached only by editors I myself was disagreeing with and had contacted by posting notices about the conflict on their page to let them know they were being discussed in the conversation.[14]

3. Even then the topic ban only applied to articles, not their talk pages.[15] I was blocked ultimately not for making edits to any page, but simply discussing rationally on a talk page.[16][17] This was mentioned here.[18]

4. Afterward my talk page was redirected to my user page by User:Innotata to prevent my appealing my block for years.[19]

Basically I got accused of edit warring after someone reverted my attempts to fix a typo, resulting in a topic ban, and then got banned for violating the topic ban because I made edits to the Obama talk page. --Joshua Zambrano 21:56, 1 February 2015 (EST)

Sounds like a violation of Wiki:Own by the powers that be. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 03:48, August 31, 2025 (EDT)

Osteopathy?

The current Wikipedia page on Osteopathy, in the article's lead area, describes osteopathy as pseudo-medicine, and as "quackery," despite the fact that American law equates osteopathy as a legal equal to regular medical practice (allopathy). The entire lead section of Wikipedia's current Osteopathy article is written in such a way so as to lead a typical reader to believe that osteopathy has little or no proven scientific value. Would anybody here mind if I added a section about osteopathy? Thanks, Npov-maniac (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

There's no need to add a new section for it -- I recommend adding it to the "Science and Evolution" section. Unless it's arguably one of the most notable/blatant examples of WP bias in this topic (compared to the others), I recommend just adding it to the sub-article. I also recommend adding permalinks. Besides all this, I think adding this would be helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

Increase in Bias after 2016 Election

In the past, to Wikipedia's credit, I think that they tried to stop bias like people labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" merely because groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center said they were. However, it seems that, within the last dozen months or so, that they've been letting such accusations as "hate group" or "far right" or things of that nature sink through. They've had articles on the Parkland March but, as far as I know, nothing on the pro-life march lately. Also, they even have entries like "fake news" where they try and define what fake news is. Besides, the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely a Left-wing foundation. Admittedly, it's not one of the big ones like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc, but it is definitely one of them. PatriotMongoose (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Homosexuality and Evolution edits

I added in another thing to the homosexuality section. You wouldn't believe it, but if you even change the parts in Wikipedia's "same sex marriage in the United States" article that read "states that support same sex marriage" to accurately say "states that support the legalization of same sex marriage" you'll get kicked off of their site. What a bunch of queers. Whoever owns Wikipedia must be some kind of pedophile.

In addition in the "Evolution" section I took out the part that said "despite the strong evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together...". On the contrary, there is strong evidence that dinosaurs did not live with man, and if someone is vandalizing this site, please don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowledge spouse (talk)

The part about dinosaurs was intentional, and there is strong evidence that they lived together. CP does not dogmatically accept evolution to the exclusion of other scientifically and historically valid views. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (EST)

Bias in coverage

Would it not be good to have a section in this article devoted to Wikipedia's bias of coverage in its topics? This could say that there tends to be a big emphasis on popular media culture topics in Wikipedia - as Wikipedia itself points out, the article on Coronation Street is longer than the article on Tony Blair. Carltonio (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

"Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics." What's wrong with that? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And it's not so much biased against America as just inclusive when it comes to the rest of the world.

Not all the news in Wikipedia is locked by administrators, so if you want to counter the bias of coverage go ahead. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:48, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

Trump administration family separation policy

I think this article is a good example of bias gone extreme on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an entire article with the completely false title "Trump administration family separation policy". Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings"). This Wikipedia article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts. The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

"The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy" - Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.

"The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation". - Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.

"It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement" - Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.

"Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services". - Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President

I have made many attempts at changing/renaming/deleting the Wikipedia article, as well as discussing the bias on the talk page, only to be completely dismissed by the left leaning administrators involved in the page. --PolitiCeon (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Excellent source to use for this article series

A Breitbart writer, whose pseudonym is "T.D. Adler," has written many articles of examples of blatant Wikipedia bias: [20] These should be used to expand and update this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

Terrific suggestion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

Racial and gender bias in Wikipedia

This article could point out that Wikipedia itself has articles entitled "Gender bias in Wikipedia" and "Racial bias in Wikipedia". Carltonio (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

New section

I found a good example of leftist bias on Wikipedia on the article talk page mentioned above. Towards the end of the discussion, it becomes obvious that a source quoting comments explicitly made by Schumer is considered to be "editorializing". Meanwhile, quotes from President Trump taken out of context by the same sources is absolutely acceptable. MAGAViking (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Brought up issue of wikipedia banning conservative sources

My understanding is that wikipedia has effectively banned references to any non-liberal newsite, including Fox Nex, the NY Post and the UK's DailyMail. Of course CNN, MSNBc, NYT and the guardian are all okay.

(1) I have not seen this issue addressed before, but it present a large, on-going bias. To me it represents the death-nail of neutrality in Wikipedia.

(2) Is there any mention of this issue on this site??

(3) When did wikipedia begin banning conservative sites?

Great points. Do others here know the answer?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:09, November 25, 2021 (EST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
 {| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
 | style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
@@ Line 6: / Line 5: @@
 <!-- ===============Archive below this line! Do not remove anything above this line.=========================== -->
-==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
+== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==
-I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians  Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
-:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place.  It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from.  Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus.  And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
-::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
-== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==
+I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:
+"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."
-I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.
-:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
-== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==
+A liberal could just as easily state,
-Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?
+"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."
-The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.
+and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.
-That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.
+== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==
-Is wikipedia in fact "<U>faithist</U>"?
+I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."
-It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?
+The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
-I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.
+==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==
-It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …
+The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
-Well lets hope not ...
+== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==
-{{unsigned|Qgobo}}
+Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.
-:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe.  That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+:I'm sorry - and you are?
-:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
+::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO):  new section)
+:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
+:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
+:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
+:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
+:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
+:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
-[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept.  It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.
-:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+: Your unsigned comment is incoherent.  But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch".  Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
-:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}
-::: That's a meaningless category.  It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A".  They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+== Gothic architecture ==
-:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia.  Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all.  It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.
+I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
-:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).
+:I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture] to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
-:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or  “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+::Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit ''Christianity''.  This is an example of that.  There are many other examples also.  When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated.  That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
-The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy.  So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith".  They ''all'' have faith:  Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.
+:::How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?[[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
-Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.
+== Drudge Bias ==
-The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.
+I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.
-Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.
+: You're right.  Thanks for your insight.  Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
-[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
-: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]].  Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
-== People for the American Way ==
+== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==
-Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first?  Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances?  It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
-: That does look biased.  Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
+== Thank you ==
-::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
-==Why some of these problems don't count==
+Dear Conservapedia editors
-Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!
-Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be  reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.
+Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor.  I wanted to thank this site for this particular article.  I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct.  This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes.  Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
-{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}
+:Thank you!  No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
-: No, you're wrong.  Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+== Thank you as well! ==
-::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
+:Thank you as well!  I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases.  Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation.  What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information.  I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet:  The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man.  If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth.  The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information.  Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
-==WP: Sexist?==
+== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==
-Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
-==Reversion==
+Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".
-I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
-:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
-::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin"  quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
-:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
-:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true.  In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
+After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed.  [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
-:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
-==43==
+:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
-Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
-P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
-: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument?  An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument.  No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
-: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
-: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
-== Smoking example ==
+==Why do they do it?==
-I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
-: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking.  Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+:As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources.  That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users.  Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in.  The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification.  So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages.  [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)
-== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==
+::I originally started editing Wikipedia about 8 months after Ed Poor, Logan.  Under my original account name I racked up about double the edits than I have made to CP.  What you say might have been true the first year or two of Wikipedia's existence, but certainly it is no longer true. Anyone with a liberal bias (which accounts to 90% of the administrators) and 75% of the editors, has a distinct advantage, even using acceptable sources, as the liberal-thinkers there will offer their own conflicting sources and through the device of "consensus" simply out-vote the more conservative users.  If you really believe what you say, make an account under another name, edit everything from a conservative point of view, and watch the high-jinx ensue.  I don't think you will be happy with the results....  --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:27, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Question ==
+:: I tried adding to a Talk page once. Noted that Peter Daszak had continued to fund "gain of function" research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WiV) even after it had been banned in 2014 (per the grant description). Also noted that Daszak had originated the letter claiming COVID-19 couldn't have escaped from WiV (per the story showing his own emails). I felt I was charitable by suggesting a "controversies" section. My suggestions were censored - from a Talk page! When I complained about being censored I was permanently banned for - get this - clearly not being there to create an encyclopedia.  So while I appreciate your claims and input, I can attest your final line is simply not true.  [[User:JocelynBey1|JocelynBey1]]
-Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+:::"Non-encyclopedic" is the catchall to get rid of somebody you don't like or a troll. Even here at CP - the alternative to Wikipedia, have adopted it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 10:43, June 2, 2021 (EDT)
-And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+==Cassie Bernall==
-: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
-I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case.  For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it).  It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong.  And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them.  It truly was a mobocracy.   I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism.  I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles.  See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
-Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance.  In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule.  Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory.  "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight".  And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
-You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID.  Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space.  By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless.  Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''.  It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space.  See, e.g., [[Exobiology]].  Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed.  You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+== Negative Words ==
-::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are being used. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --[[User:Carceous|Carceous]] 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
-Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+:: I largely agree with Carceous. My opinion has always been that it is more effective to present facts of what happened (kinda like Tucker Carlson) rather than express negative opinions (kinda like Sean Hannity). Readers and listeners form their own opinions. I fully understand the desire to call the *#@## that wikipedia engages in *#@## and sometimes do so myself. But I feel it is not as effective. [[User:JocelynBey1|JocelynBey1]]
-: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page.  Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else.  In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.
+===Racistpedia===
+I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]]<sup>[[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]]</sup> 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
+:I concur.  Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
-: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+::These postings are incoherent.  What are you referring to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
-::Translation:  "It's my website, so I get the last word."  (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy.  I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.)  --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+::My sincere apologies for not replying earlier.  #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title."  What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
-::: Gulik5, you're clueless also.  We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]].  See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].  Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+:::You make a valid point.  But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring.  Also, I sense the liberal [[double standard]]:  liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does.  Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
-I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
+::::It's not just Wikipedia. [[Mark Twain]] was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word ''nigger'' nearly 1,000 times in [[Huckleberry Finn]]. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's [[Uncle Tom]], but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
-== Maths, anyone? ==
+:::::Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
-''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''
+== Cover up ==
-out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%.  That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave.  Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?
+Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy]  Check out how it has been nominated for deletion.  Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report?  [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
-Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.
+:This ref [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html] says "Wikipedia appoints <u>supposedly</u> impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10577178]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
-- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
+== Messy ==
---[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
+I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'
-: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim.  Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point.  Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
+I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.
-== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
+== o3o ==
-Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?
---[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
+Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]]KnightOfTheNight
-==Administrator names? Huh?==
+:Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
-This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
+==Concealing facts==
-I concur.  --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
+Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.
-: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:
+If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.
-* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
+Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as [[scientists with a religious motivation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
-* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance
-: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell.  It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer.  And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
+==a question==
-==Peter Singer==
+People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
-New to this site.  Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide.  The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book.  An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm  [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
-* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV
+:That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia.  Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth.  These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.
-:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
+:If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here.  Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
+::Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.[[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
-== Question of Logic ==
+::: You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it.  They like Wikipedia ''because'' it has liberal bias and gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
-The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded.  While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals.  Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. <br />
+:: Euaaan, I tried editing the wiki talk page on Peter Daszak to mention that he had engaged in continuing funding of gain of function research after Obama's 2014 ban (per the grant description found on-line), and that he had drafted and originated the journal "letter" claiming COVID-19 could not possibly, never ever, have come from a lab (per the emails also on-line), even claiming he had no competing interests. I felt I was being charitable putting these in a section labeled "controversies." It was reverted and re-reverte.  All this for a talk page suggestion! When I complained about censorship I was permanently banned. So no, I don't agree with you at all. Look at the pages on most controversial American issues and you'll see their is a clear bias on page after page. Look at my example of how I was treated and you'll see why.  --[[User:JocelynBey1|Jocelyn Bey]]
-<br />
+:::You need to understand the "national security concerns" as to why this happened or happens. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 10:50, June 2, 2021 (EDT)
-To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian).  I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous.  As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others.  If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
-== Creation "myth" ==
+== Jim Pouillon ==
-Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth  {{unsigned|Cal05000}}
-: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pouillon Jim Pouillon]
-::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+==I beg to differ==
-::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth.  I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like?
+I am willing to debate about this. --[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
-:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]].  See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition].  {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
+:"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia.  It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob.  Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.
-::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+:Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards:  it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school.  Conservatives believe in free speech.
-You are both right.  "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''.  The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this.  But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3.  Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion.  Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+:Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
-: Great points, Philip.  In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+::First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.
+::I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
+::I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.
+::Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the [[Evolution]] page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?
+::Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
+:::'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our [[Evolution]] and [[Carbon dating]] pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our [[Liberal Style]] article. [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
+::::John Fraiser, the [[Liberal Style]] is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.
+::::I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--[[User:GatesOfDawn|Arno Sluismans]] 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)
-:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief".  Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:
+:::::Who names himself after a "piece of art"???  From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to.  Scientific wannabees are fooled by the [[radiometric dating]], not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin.  Perhaps you fell for the [[global warming]] fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.
-::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
+:::::The Bible is the most logical book ever written.  If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life.  Do yourself a favor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
-::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
-::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
-::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])
-::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution.  The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
+== "None even exist off the shores of the United States.... " ==
-::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then.  You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution.  You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well.  Enjoy it there.  We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
+Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)
-::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results).  I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed.  However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries.  This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is.  Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.
+:You miss the point.  If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering.  Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)
+::I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)
-::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta).  Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias.  Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).
+:::Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious [[placement bias]]?  Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen.  That's where the bias is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)
+:::::You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)
-::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended.  I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::Peter, you're in denial.  You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read.  Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
-::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin.  He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation.  The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's  a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)
-Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
+:::::::::This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
-Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+== Wikipedia recommends using "God" rather than "Allah." ==
-: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
-: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions?  This is part of the atheist agenda:  Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific".  Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia.  Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth.  Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
-: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
-: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:ISLAM#Allah]
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
+Worth including?
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth".  My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution.  It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page?  "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
+--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
+::You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God.  They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way.  -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
-* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
-* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
-Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-: Right.  The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::Any other thoughts on this?  I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.'  So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-== Categorization ==
+== Possible Bias ==
-Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
+The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
+== Wind turbine line ==
-== #12: Ron Paul smear ==
+If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states:
+'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.
-As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul.  I fail to see the smear here.  -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+:The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here.  A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.
-: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments?  When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner.  Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+:The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)
-:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+== Hans Bethe and SDI ==
+Links:
+*[[Hans Bethe]]
+*[[John Kerry]]
+*[[Manhattan Project]]
+*[[atomic bomb]]
+*[[quantum physics]]
+*[[Nobel Prize]]
+*[[SDI]]
+*[[nuclear proliferation]]
-::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.
+Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president."  Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics.  If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him.  Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.
-::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic.  He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president.  While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+:You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics.  SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering.  But apparently he knew his politics:  he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear.  If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time.  Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him.  Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+::Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all.  All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute.  And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community.  He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI.  --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb.  That is an exaggeration.  You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe.  The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard.  It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-== Points #1, #4 ==
+::::Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::::I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement.  But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such.  It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia.  Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack."  And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion.  As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"?  We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less).  And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything.  So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.
-== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==
+:::::Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me.  I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat.  While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader.  But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.
-Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality).  Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::::p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths.  Support for the program is not somehow self-evident.  There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."
-:Check out the recent edit history.  WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
-:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view.  Physics is not engineering.  I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact.  (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)
-:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::This is a common form of liberal bias:  cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too.  It's fallacious and should be exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)
-:::: I don't see any improvement.  Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]].  The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time.  Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now.   First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense.  For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.
-:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"?  Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise?  Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists?  Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian?  Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses.  Cheers. --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained.  The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job.  No, I'm not going to waste all night on this.  The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry.  This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal.  No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI.  Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!
-:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::More generally, it's a [[liberal trick]] to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field.  That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive.  Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI."  See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)
-::::::::Edit war.  Mm-hmm.  Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war.  Nope.  They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::::That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of [[Lenski]]'s work and wrote the following...."
+:::::::::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::::No, we don't overrely on "experts", see [[best of the public]].  We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case.  And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there.  There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted.  There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+== Stats? ==
-<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'
-: We did.  See the first and fifth paragraphs above.  Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that.  If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it.  So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
+While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)
-:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of ''accuracy'' on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)
-::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I also think this page could be looked at: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)
-== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==
+::Please add your info as you think best.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)
-The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."
+:::Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of ''8 times'' as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--[[User:JackTennant|JackTennant]] 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)
-However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim".  For example:  in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).
+== Saul Alinsky - wiki wont allow debate ==
-Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature.  In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!).  AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations".  Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.
+I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:
-Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
+It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
-"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe".  They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".
-{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}
+Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'
-: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported.  Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations.   Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy.  So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization?  This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
+:Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
-== Reversion explained ==
+::the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist.  i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho).  good luck with any future editing you do there. [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
-The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here.  Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly.  We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
+== I've heard stories of this, can anyone find a proven example? ==
-:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: Dnotice, you have this backwards.  Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here.  OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
+A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!
-:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first.  Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't.  In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here.  Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.
-:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::[[User:Newton|Newton]] 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
-:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::: Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself?  [[User:Decora|Decora]] 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Thank you Conservapedia ==
-:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias.  I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example.  The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned.  The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ).  A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. {{unsigned|Trvl2much}} -- 09:56, 25 April 2010
-:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here.  Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Richard Dawkins - contrast Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia soon once more information is added to the Dawkins article ==
-:::::::How could I show that?  Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said.  With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only.  We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr.  Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article.  Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well.  Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.  I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide.   I certainly hope that is true. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
-==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
+== Too long! ==
-Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia.   Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism.   And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information.   I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance.   [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
-: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism.  Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
-:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"?   [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
-::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies."  The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+:: It's been several months since I posted this, and I was able to break up most of the article into smaller articles. I don't get to conservapedia much these days: frankly I prefer being on Wikipedia and trying to thwart their libral agenda. So I'm asking: '''can someone else please help to split this article into smaller articles, in the same manner that I did this?''' I'd really like to see this completed. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 14:07, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
-==Belfast Agreement==
+== Vladimir Lenin ==
-Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'.   Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html].  [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH?   Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement].   I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island.   I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here?   It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.'''  It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? [[User:msirois|msirois]] 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble.   The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used.   Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want.    [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+:That isn't senseless trivia.  Many of the [[communists]] poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection.  It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way.  In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion.  Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples.  Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+== #12 - Not a good example ==
-:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article.   Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland?   And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors?   And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them?   And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented?   Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
+While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one.  I looked into the history of this editor.  He used language to attack people that no good person should use.  Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website.  While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true.  But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama?   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno.   Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you.  Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.
+:Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
+::I'm sorry.  Here is the section from his talk page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKAPITALIST88&action=historysubmit&diff=335552970&oldid=335183331]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KAPITALIST88&oldid=335767502#Blocked_3] Thanks. [[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public.  The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale.  There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen.  Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian.  Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong.   First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public".   If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned.   Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know.   Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references.   Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent).   The third reference was a TV channel.   They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country.   The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays.   Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know.   Are you an expert on every country in the world?    Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998".   Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement.   While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy.   Good day to you Sir.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+== "Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels ==
-::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control.  I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia.  In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers.  Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia.  The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger.  It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.
+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.
-::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office?  Fine.  It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second.  Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias.  Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]].  Godspeed.  I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (about as "radical left wing" as you can get.)  Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned.
-:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"?   We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe an extremely radical left-wing group.
-===References===
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society<br />
-Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''.   (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms'').   Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement:  [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"].   A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink<br />
+--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] <br />
+:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)
-Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or  [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]?  It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly.  Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
+:Superb example.  Could you go ahead and add it as the top of the content entry here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 27 December 2010 (EST)
-:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
-----
-Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available.  So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.
-However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons.  That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis.  So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.
+:: I am *really* new here (first attempt at posting) I am not following what you mean regarding "top of the content entry"--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 21:32, 27 December 2010 (EST)
-[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+::It's because Wikipedia abandoned their one, primary rule: Neutral Point of View.  We know it, they know it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:27, 27 December 2010 (EST)
-:Philip, a few points.   1)   The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'.   The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public;   2)  Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland;  3)   It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none;  4)   Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement].   In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist.   I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: 1) I agree.  I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
-:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
-:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
-:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal.  The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles.  And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin.  So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example.  So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
-:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name.  As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all.  Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision.  Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked.  I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.
+== Gatekeepers removing Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine Waters from lists of Progressives who have served in U. S. Congress ==
-::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones.  Guess what?  I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day."  I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism <br />
-:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+Last year, I added Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine waters to the list of notable current/former Congress members who were progressives.  My original addition lasted a few months, then were removed without explanation.  I re-added them a couple weeks ago, and editors started immediately removing.  I brought up issue on the Discussion page, where I included iron-clad quotes of Obama and Clinton describing themselves as progressives, and noted that Waters has been in the Progressive caucus since the 1990's.  I am now in an edit war with leftist editors desperately trying to keep those three names off the list.--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 18:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)
-::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-)  Thanks for pointing that out.  What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+: Interesting.  Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)
-::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Jared Loughner ==
-::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice.  Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+Hello,
+Just an observation, Wikipedia does refer to Loughner as a "nihilistic atheist". I feel that his entry should be reworded to reflect how Wikipedia glosses over the fact that this attributed to his actions. Just thinking aloud. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)
-:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common.  However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement".  Both the other terms can be redirects to that.  I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+: It appears to me that Wikipedia added "nihilistic" only after we criticized it here.  The history file on Wikipedia shows that it was an addition late today, and you might be interested in checking the precise timing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)
-::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name.  Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+::That's a great observation Andy! It's very pleasing to see that finally the conservative voice is being heard by the liberals at wikipedia. [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)
-:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested.   It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia.   It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document.   All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it.   Thank you for finally understanding my position.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Gender bias and netball ==
-::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+I edited the entries regarding netball and gender email lists under gender bias a bit to attempt to make them more accurate as to what happened at WP. The banned WP editor wasn't banned for his edits on the article, he was banned for attempting to "out" an editor to her supposed real-life employer and for harassment. I also removed individual editors' names because it doesn't really matter ''who'' did the edits, just that they occurred.
-:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no.   [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Out of Date Examples ==
-::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too).  Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time.  To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+Considering how long this list has been around and how extensive it is, there are naturally a few claims that aren't necessarily correct anymore. I found two- 34 and 35, which are about the articles "North American Union" and "Eritrea". I was going to correct it but the spam filter won't allow it. I suspect that there also may be a few other examples that have gone out of date, I think the list might need to be refreshed a bit.--[[User:Pencil|Pencil]] 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST)
-::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed.  Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first.  Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around.  Are we agreed on that course of action?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+== The "F" word appears 7,000 times. ==
+...and the "J" word ("Jesus") appears 47,959 times! [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 09:37, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+:Perhaps, but do you think that word belongs in an encyclopedia at all?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:02, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+::Yes. It exists, it has a history, people use it. It belongs in an encyclopedia as much as do other unsavory words/ideas such as "murder." [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 10:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+:::It has as much educational value as toilet water.  The number for "F" is 32,000+ if you select all search fields. Biased toward the lowest common denominator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+::::Jpatt said it well. Wikipedia is rife with anti-intellectual bickering and habitual swearing.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:31, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+== Experts? ==
+<blockquote>
+"Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[73]
+</blockquote>
+I'm a bit confused about this. Thus is it arguing that Wikipedia adopts a [[Best of the Public]] approach? [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:46, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+:I've just had a flick through the rest of these - this article is absolutely ridiculous and half of them should be removed simply on common sense. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)
+== Redundancy ==
+Why is there such a vast amount of examples under "General/Uncategorized"? The point that Wikipedia is left-leaning is very quickly proven; there is no reason to have 60+ examples. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 15:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
+:If there are duplicate examples, feel free to delete them. This page is not protected. As for not having too many examples, as an encyclopedia, it is necessary that we list all new biases in Wikipedia; indeed, we must continuously show that Wikipedia is biased by having plenty of fresh examples. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
+::It's just that most of the examples are informal and rude (calling policies "silly" multiple times) and seems to bash Wikipedia just out of spite. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 16:03, 30 December 2011 (EST)
+The General/Uncategorized, by my understanding, is not supposed to be there. People should move it to the right page. I worked on this a bit a few months ago. I'm back now. Will try to do more. [[User:RickTx|RickTx]] 16:46, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
+== Ethnocentrism ==
+Hey,
+Have you guys taken a look at the ethnocentrism category on Wikipedia? They have labeled "American exceptionalism" under the category of ethnocentrism and they label it as "nationalism" and are very biased against the article.
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethoncentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/category:ethoncentrism. You will find American exceptionalism listed there. Among other things I noticed on Wikipedia. They label Creationism under the category of denialism.  They have a creation myths category on there, where they label Creationism as a myth. I'm sure that would of interest to you people.
+They label Creation Science under the category of Pseudoscience. Are you paying attention? How come none of this stuff has been talked about?
+==Page organization==
+How about pushing the misc. examples into a separate subpage and then moving the three best examples from each subpage back to the main example list?  I suspect most users will just go to the misc. examples and not read the better examples just because they have been sorted by subject matter. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
+:Sounds great.  Pleaes improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:17, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
+::I am starting but it will take a bit of time to do correctly. Thanks, Andy. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:38, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
+:::Any comments or feedback? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:42, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
+== Far-left far-right politics ==
+Hey guys,
+have you guys checked out the  articles promoting the far-left's dismantling of society as if it is a legitimate cause? Have you seen the far-right politics article that basically paints the far-right as supremacist and hierarchical and bigoted, while it praises far-left politics and even supports their radical destruction if society and supporting anarchy by dismantling the social structure and creating anarchy and destroying the "supremacist" and painting those who want a socially-structured society as "Far-right" in typical communist language. While failing to mention the black-supremacist politics common on the far-left, their Islamic supremacist politics and presents far-left politics as a healthy and balanced form of politics. They present the fringe left ideals of dismantling and destroying social structures and actively promote far-left politics, while "denigrating" far-right politics by proclaiming them "extremists" and in favor of social oppression, racism, supremacist politics that involve race and a society where a balanced social structure and healthy and socially normal society is presented as a "far-right" hierarchial ideal, while failing to mention the racism on the far-left, its supremacist anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian politics, its hatred against Israel, its hate rallies calling for killing Bush. Nope, far-left politics good, far-right (our politics of regular conservatives smeared as "far-right" by Wikipedia. Check out those two articles about far-right politics and far-left politics and you'll see what I am talking about.
+== Updating this page when issues are fixed on Wikipedia ==
+I edited Wikipedia to fix a few of the issues mentioned on this page and subpages (for example, adding the official picture of Sally Kern); should the fixed issues just be removed from this page, or should they be edited to say that Wikipedia used to have these issues before they were fixed in response to being mentioned here? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] 14:15, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
+:In my opinion I think that the individual issues should stay here, but with the added caveat that they were addressed and corrected on such-and-such date.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
+::Agreed. Then maybe readers can see how long the bias lasts without correction. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:45, 17 August 2013 (EDT)
+That is why it is important to use permalinks when citing to Wikipedia.  I believe that examples should remain on these pages.  But if an example is fixed after a short period, we may  consider moving it to the subpage and replacing it with another example from that subpage which has not yet been fixed. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:39, 20 August 2013 (EDT)
+== New example for you ==
+http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh
+--[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:40, 23 September 2014 (EDT)
+== My Own Case ==
+I have an unusual case. I was reviewing the particulars of what happened with my Wikipedia ban. I may be the only editor in Wikipedia history to have been indefinitely banned for over 4 years because I fixed a typo. I think my case may prove to be one of the strongest examples of Wikipedia bias because there ultimately was no justification for the ban.
+. Claims that I'd "edit warred" were actually caused by my being lured into an edit war over fixing a typo.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=363077950#New_block.2C_now_lifted] The controversial edit I made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=363044921&oldid=363031183] was in actuality just a typo fix, the word was wrong given the Gallup source. This was discussed here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010] UltraExactzz realized I was being falsely accused of an edit war and reversed the ban. [[User:NeutralHomer]] furthermore attempted to force an edit war over added template warnings to my talk page which I considered a violation of [[WP:HUSH]], I should have the right to delete warnings posted to my page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#May_2010]
+. A community topic ban was reimposed by the same editor who opposed my edits in the first place, while falsely claiming consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=644158612#Topic_ban] JzG was the same editor who opposed my edits and tried to get me in trouble for them months earlier.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=334164599#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F] In actuality the so-called "consensus" was reached only by editors I myself was disagreeing with and had contacted by posting notices about the conflict on their page to let them know they were being discussed in the conversation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban]
+. Even then the topic ban only applied to articles, not their talk pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Topic_ban] I was blocked ultimately not for making edits to any page, but simply discussing rationally on a talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=363239597][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=363239597] This was mentioned here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&oldid=363404699#Indefinitely_Blocked_for_violating_the_topic_ban]
+. Afterward my talk page was redirected to my user page by [[User:Innotata]] to prevent my appealing my block for years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&action=history]
+Basically I got accused of edit warring after someone reverted my attempts to fix a typo, resulting in a topic ban, and then got banned for violating the topic ban because I made edits to the Obama talk page. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:56, 1 February 2015 (EST)
+:Sounds like a violation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#:~:text=This%20page%20in%20a%20nutshell%3A%20No%20one%20%22owns%22,should%20not%20undo%20their%20edits%20without%20good%20reason. Wiki:Own] by the powers that be. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 03:48, August 31, 2025 (EDT)
+== Osteopathy? ==
+The current Wikipedia page on Osteopathy, in the article's lead area, describes osteopathy as pseudo-medicine, and as "quackery," despite the fact that American law equates osteopathy as a legal equal to regular medical practice (allopathy).  The entire lead section of Wikipedia's current Osteopathy article is written in such a way so as to lead a typical reader to believe that osteopathy has little or no proven scientific value.   Would anybody here mind if I added a section about osteopathy? Thanks, [[User:Npov-maniac|Npov-maniac]] ([[User talk:Npov-maniac|talk]]) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
+:There's no need to add a new section for it -- I recommend adding it to the "Science and Evolution" section. Unless it's arguably one of the most notable/blatant examples of WP bias in this topic (compared to the others), I recommend just adding it to the sub-article. I also recommend adding permalinks. Besides all this, I think adding this would be helpful. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
+==Increase in Bias after 2016 Election==
+In the past, to Wikipedia's credit, I think that they tried to stop bias like people labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" merely because groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center said they were.   However, it seems that, within the last dozen months or so, that they've been letting such accusations as "hate group" or "far right" or things of that nature sink through.   They've had articles on the Parkland March but, as far as I know, nothing on the pro-life march lately.   Also, they even have entries like "fake news" where they try and define what fake news is.    Besides, the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely a Left-wing foundation.   Admittedly, it's not one of the big ones like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc, but it is definitely one of them.  [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
+== Homosexuality and Evolution edits==
+I added in another thing to the homosexuality section. You wouldn't believe it, but if you even change the parts in Wikipedia's "same sex marriage in the United States" article that read "states that support same sex marriage" to accurately say "states that support the legalization of same sex marriage" you'll get kicked off of their site. What a bunch of queers. Whoever owns Wikipedia must be some kind of pedophile.
+In addition in the "Evolution" section I took out the part that said "despite the strong evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together...". On the contrary, there is strong evidence that dinosaurs did not live with man, and if someone is vandalizing this site, please don't. {{unsigned|Knowledge spouse}}
+:The part about dinosaurs was intentional, and there is strong evidence that they lived together. CP does not dogmatically accept evolution to the exclusion of other scientifically and historically valid views. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (EST)
+==Bias in coverage==
+Would it not be good to have a section in this article devoted to Wikipedia's bias of coverage in its topics? This could say that there tends to be a big emphasis on popular media culture topics in Wikipedia  - as Wikipedia itself points out, the article on [[Coronation Street]] is longer than the article on [[Tony Blair]]. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
+"Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics."
+What's wrong with that? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And it's not so much biased against America as just inclusive when it comes to the rest of the world.
+:Not all the news in Wikipedia is locked by administrators, so if you want to counter the bias of coverage go ahead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:48, 29 March 2020 (EDT)
+==Trump administration family separation policy==
+I think this article is a good example of bias gone extreme on Wikipedia.
+Wikipedia has an entire article with the completely false title "Trump administration family separation policy".  Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings").
+This Wikipedia article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts.
+The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:
+"The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy" - '''Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.'''
+"The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation". - '''Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.'''
+"It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement" - '''Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.'''
+"Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services". - '''Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President'''
+I have made many attempts at changing/renaming/deleting the Wikipedia article, as well as discussing the bias on the talk page, only to be completely dismissed by the left leaning administrators involved in the page.
+--[[User:PolitiCeon|PolitiCeon]] ([[User talk:PolitiCeon|talk]]) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
+== Excellent source to use for this article series ==
+A Breitbart writer, whose pseudonym is "T.D. Adler," has written many articles of examples of blatant Wikipedia bias: [https://www.breitbart.com/author/t-d-adler/] These should be used to expand and update this article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
+:Terrific suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
+==Racial and gender bias in Wikipedia==
+This article could point out that Wikipedia itself has articles entitled "Gender bias in Wikipedia" and "Racial bias in Wikipedia". [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 12:35, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
+== New section ==
+I found a good example of leftist bias on Wikipedia on the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer/Archive_1#Dayle23's_edits talk page] mentioned above. Towards the end of the discussion, it becomes obvious that a source quoting comments explicitly made by Schumer is considered to be "editorializing". Meanwhile, quotes from President Trump taken out of context by the same sources is absolutely acceptable. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (EST)
+== Brought up issue of wikipedia banning conservative sources ==
+My understanding is that wikipedia has effectively banned references to any non-liberal newsite, including Fox Nex, the NY Post and the UK's DailyMail.  Of course CNN, MSNBc, NYT and the guardian are all okay.
+(1) I have not seen this issue addressed before, but it present a large, on-going bias. To me it represents the death-nail of neutrality
+in Wikipedia.
+(2) Is there any mention of this issue on this site??
+(3) When did wikipedia begin banning conservative sites?
+:Great points.  Do others here know the answer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:09, November 25, 2021 (EST)