Replies

I'm reasonably certain that stating I do not believe GWB (not my baby), Abortion (I guard this, pointed out systemic bias), Kwanzaa (under heavy construction), and list of homosexuals (systemic flaw with academic research, and possibly wrong on a number of places, but not any you've pointed out thus far for non systemic reasons) is sufficient evidence to show an overwhelming bias.

You're still tap dancing around the issue. These articles all show a bias of some form that tilts toward the left. While they do not encompass EVERY single article on wikipedia, it is perfectly fair to say that they represent a sample of the types of bias that can be found on similar political articles. In fact I can pull up just about any developed political article on Wikipedia and find more of the exact same left wing garbage.

Take this article about conservative radio talk show host and Freeper Michael Graham for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graham

It is obviously written by one or more persons with an axe to grind against Graham. Over half of the article is about a controversy over remarks Graham made about Islam during one of his shows, and is written in a way that portrays Graham as the villian in the incident. The opening "biographical" paragraphs aren't much better including the 2nd paragraph, which includes a lengthy guilt-by-association diatribe that implies Graham must be a racist or something since he considers early 20th Century satirist H.L. Mencken a hero, and Mencken made remarks in his own time that would be considered un-PC today.

Let's pick another political article...Nancy Pelosi.

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

Pelosi's a well known liberal democrat figure and no stranger to controversy. Given her prominence you'd think there would be at least some criticism of her in the article. But it's all glowing praises about how she's "the first woman to lead a major political party in either house of Congress."

The only thing in the entire article that is even remotely critical of her is this paltry little paragraph near the bottom, which carefully guards saying anything overtly critical of her: "Republicans in some areas of the country, especially the South and Midwest, have used the label of a "San Francisco liberal" or "Bay Area liberal" as a form of political labeling, predominantly as a tool to win over voters since Pelosi would become Speaker of the House if the Democrats regain control of Congress. Even before becoming minority leader, Pelosi had one of the most liberal voting records in the House."

Now think back for a minute to the Graham article, which was almost entirely about criticisms of him. And here we have Pelosi, which is nothing but praise.

I suppose you could say that this is an isolated case selected to fit the criteria (and have no doubt you would try that line of argument as you continue your dance around Wikipedia's many flaws). But look at just about any political article and you can clearly see that it is not.

Let's try Tom Daschle, the former Democrat Senate Minority leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle

Daschle's article, much like Pelosi's, is almost entirely positive. The only thing even remotely critical of him is a tiny section at the bottom about how he lost his seat, and it blames that loss on Bill Frist for "breaking an unwritten tradition that one party's leader in the Senate would not campaign directly for the other's defeat."

Compare that with the articles for the GOP Majority Leaders who served opposite of him during Daschle's period of leadership though.

The article on Bill Frist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist) describes in lengthy drawn out detail virtually every single political controversy and criticism he's ever been involved in. Trent Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott) is not much better, and over half of the article is about his controversies and insinuations of "racism."

Or how about Pelosi's counterparts? Dennis Hastert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert#Support_for_Turkey) has bizarre criticisms of him for alleged views regarding the government of Turkey and minor controversies, such as a comment he made about New Orleans. And don't even start on Tom DeLay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay) which lists virtually every single controversy and allegation ever made against him.

And as always, those are just a few samples of the severe pro-left political imbalance on wikipedia - samples that can be validated by almost any major political article on that site.