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)
: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)
::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)
:: 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]]
:::"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)
==Cassie Bernall==
== Negative Words ==
While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are usingbeing 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) :: 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]]
===Racistpedia===
::: 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)
:: 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]]
:::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)
== Jim Pouillon ==
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)
== AtheismToo 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. [[User:Ctown200|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. [[User:Ctown200|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. [[User:Ctown200|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? [[User:msirois|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.[[User:BobMack|BobMack]] 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT) :Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</Reign 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) == "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 Terror 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<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink<br />--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] <br />21:13, 27 December 2010 (EST) :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) :: 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) ::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) ==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 <br /> 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) : Interesting. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:EricAlstrom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:DanielG|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.--[[User:Pencil|Pencil]] 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST) == 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. 1. 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] 2. 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] 3. 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] 4. 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) == 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'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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. [[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'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[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'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'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?
''Wikipedia's article on the French Revolution censors the central role atheism played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]]:Great points.[9]'':In defence of Wikipedia, neither does the "Reign of Terror" article Do others here. Perhaps it's just not significant enough to mention on either site?:Honestly, as well, there's a comment on how so-and-so, know the supreme court judge, is mentioned as having the same birthday as President Jimmy Carter, while the opposite is unnoted. Going out on a limb here and I'm guessing President > Judge. Can we return to an age of reason where not everything is a sign of evil liberal biasanswer? --[[User:DzugaviliAschlafly|DzugaviliAndy Schlafly]] 19([[User talk:05Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:09, November 25, 6 May 2010 2021 (EDTEST)