[Arkinsaw]

Do some of us want it to be a flattering fiction before we call it "unbiased?"

I wrote hundreds of articles over there so I have some experience with the community.

My primary example is that the term "Santorum" was put in. It was coined by a homosexual activist DJ in San Francisco and had no national exposure. That definition remains in a truncated, somewhat less vile and obscene way. But it still exists.

Islamosfacism on the other hand has been used by conservative columnists, has been broadcast on national news programs, and gets tons of Google hits. Yet that article was turned into a redirect to the article [Neofascism and religion] which has no reference to the term or really much of anything about Islam in it. The Islamofascism article was derided as being unworthy of an encyclopedia article, racist, and offensive and it now no longer exists. Yeah, but an article that some unknown guy made up that equated Senator Rick Santorum with an aspect of homosexual sex WAS worthy.

Why the difference? Because the people who have the influence on Wikipedia do not like Senator Santorum and do want to be politically correct about Islam. Thats why, and its the only possible reason why the double standard. How the article is debated and what due process it gets depends on its content.

[sourcery]

How the article is debated and what due process it gets depends on its content.

Yep. Same goes for DU. And for FR. And for any society.

Betcha there's lots of statements in lots of Wikipedia articles that the DUers find objectionable.

[Yeti]

Because the people who have the influence on Wikipedia do not like Senator Santorum and do want to be politically correct about Islam.

Maybe, but, like I said before, Wikipedia is not the place I go for editorial content on current events. I also noticed at the bottom of the FR page there was a link to a site that parodies DU. If you want to tit-for-tat every little thing that paints R's and D's in a bad light, it could get tedious. There may be bias one way in one spot, in another way in another spot.

Also, I note from reading the Santorum entry that this word was selected by the American Dialect Society as the most outrageous new word of 2004, and that extensive Google bombing was done in a coordinated effort to introduce the new definition to the public, these two significant events make it worthy of an entry. But I notice that it doesn't have it's own page, it is a subentry under the entry for the somewhat influential blog of the man who coined the term. His primary claim to fame seems to be coinage of "two sex-related neologisms," one of which was "santorum"(I won't say what it means). Since the word is apparently his greatest accomplishment, it's mention and definition are relevant to an article about his blog.

There might be some bias, but if I were editing a worldwide, mul;tilingual encyclopedia, I would be as hesitant to include "islamofascist" as I would to include "baptofascist" or "christofascist." The only purpose would be propaganda against a religion during a time when(rightly or otherwise) this classic motivational propaganda technique is being used by a major political party in a major nation during a time of war.

In brief: failure to validate propaganda for its own sake does not demonstrate bias to me, it demonstrates responsibility and discretion.

Make it, like the santorum entry, a relevant part of an article about something objective, and it will probably be mentioned in its proper perspective under the appropriate topic, as was the word "santorum."

BTW: thank you for whatever work you did on Wikipedia. For PC bias, read Encarta.