Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Wackypedia (Wikipedia) prefers B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly.

The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most users are American. The entry for Hapsburg (the ruling family) changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Often British spellings of words (e.g., "favour") are used even when the topic is American. That's silly. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not tell the reader when it occurred.

Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger gives an incorrect date for his important trial: 1734, instead of the correct 1735. The Wikipedia entry also links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later.

Wikipedia has an entry describing Demopedia, which has become almost inactive. Conservapedia is growing far faster than Demopedia, yet many Wikipedia editors insisted on censoring the Conservapedia entry in Wikipedia.

For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.

Wikipedia has many entries on "concession", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, an ugly notice of potential "deletion" (censorship) was posted on the top of the website. Then a half-dozen anonymous critics demanded the the entry be deleted. Their same arguments would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries, but they did not complain about those other entries. The entry about Conservapedia remained defaced throughout the "debate". This comment in support of Conservapedia summed it up:

The reasons cited here for immediately deleting "conservapedia" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the "speedy delete" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain.

How many other conservative entries have been censored by Wikipedia editors?