Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama

President Obama

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Barack Hussein Obama:

1. In a most deceitful, fascist political tactic Wikipedia's biography on Barack Obama discusses in detail his early childhood from when his parents met in 1960 to 1994 when Obama first served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then the article skips 1995 when Obama accepted the nomination and ran as a candidate of a Marxist political party called the New Party, and it jumps ahead to after "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996." The stink of intellectual corruption in Wikipedia reeks of deceit, censoring an entire year of Barack Obama's life as a candidate before he got elected.
2. Barack Obama cannot give a coherent speech without reading from a teleprompter, and even had two of them set up in an elementary school just to talk to reporters there. But Wikipedia's lengthy entry about Obama does not mention the teleprompter, not even once.
3. Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.
4. In the wake of the official release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, editors have engaged in an edit war in Wikipedia in their article on the subject, as key references to Vatell about the meaning of natural-born citizen were forcibly removed. Within a week, "sanitizing" of sorts took place on other online dictionaries and reference sites, as each revision sought to push the idea that the Constitution's natural-born clause should refer to anyone born in the United States regardless of the immigration status of the parents.
5. Barack Obama lost by a 2-1 margin in a congressional primary in 2000, but Wikipedia reduces that fact to merely one hard-to-find sentence amid its exaggerated praise.
6. Wikipedia's entry on Barack Obama claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition," when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.
7. Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush" but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama" It has since been removed.
8. In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush," but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least FOUR TIMES since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP." Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.
9. The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories," however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism, the 9/11 Truth movement, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
10. Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban.
11. Wikipedia feels that the Barack Obama article should omit any mention of William Ayers and the Weather Underground. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to ACORN either.
12. Wikipedia covers for Obama and his Libyan war. The 287,304 byte-long Wikipedia article "2011 Libyan civil war" mentions Obama's name once, the very last sentence. Despite the UN, NATO, France and now Sudan participating, Wikipedia calls it a civil war.
13. Wikipedia does not make any mention of the man who influenced Obama, John Maynard Keynes' known fraud and pedophilia.
14. Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that Barack Hussein Obama was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [2]
15. Wikipedia's article regarding Kehinde Wiley's official portrait of Obama makes no mention of the artist's history of painting overtly racist works in which white people are being beheaded , despite this fact causing considerable controversy when the painting was originally unveiled.
16. Wikipedia's article on Donald Trump is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from CNN and other left-wing news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office .
17. Wikipedia also sympathizes with terrorist funder Barack Obama, that is, since he gave money to Hezbollah as President up to $600 million, by saying "Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former US President Barack Obama, including belief in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" (Note: This bias belongs to the sublists Conservapedia smears and Obama)

Examples of Bias

The following are arbitration cases involving bias at Wikipedia by preventing inclusion of material critical of Obama:

Case Name	Date	People Involved	Claims	Findings
Obama articles	2009, 3/20-8/29	Stevertigo, Sceptre, Grsz11, Wikidemon, Dank55, Tarc, Bobblehead, ChildofMidnight, Scjessey, Baseball Bugs, Grundle2600	Wikidemon, Grsz11, Tarc, and Scjessey accused Stevertigo, Grundle2600, and ChildofMidnight of "edit warring" and "disrupting the encyclopedia". Grundle2600 accused those wanting him blocked of being Obama supporters "afraid of people finding the truth" and censorship. ChildofMidnight accused Tarc, Scjessey, Wikidemon, and Baseball Bugs of teaming up to remove material critical of Obama, and using personal attacks and incivility. Stevertigo accused Sceptre, Wikidemon, Tarc, Grsz11, and Bobblehead of censoring discussions about including material controversial for Obama, and taking turns reverting the edits to cause violation of the 3RR rule, then claiming those who reinsert the calls for critical material are "edit warring" .	The Arbcom committee concluded Stevertigo had edit warred and canvassed for support, that Sceptre had edit warred and stalked Stevertigo reverting his edits elsewhere and engaging in edit summary attacks, that Grsz had engaged in incivil edit summaries, that Wikidemon had teamed up with Sceptre to edit war including to add comments back on a user's talk page they'd removed, that Tarc had engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries, that ChildofMidnight edit warred, canvassed, and deleted material, resulting in a block, that Scjessey engaged in incivility and personal attacks, canvassed, removed parts of an AfD discussion, and stalked ChildofMidnight's edits, that Baseball Bugs was incivil and removed talk page discussions while using it as a forum himself, and that Grundle2600 edit warred and was blocked as a result.