Did you ever notice that Wikipedian's love to add "allegations" and "controversey" sections to politicians or people they hate? This is how the corrupt Wiki hides his "NPOV". If you want to write an article that is overtly biased and call it "neutral"...all you do is stuff it with controversey. Of course, every politician has dirt on them...dirt that is real, dirt that is fabricated. The leftist bigoted Wikipedian knows that all he needs to do in order to slam a politician is focus heavily on controversey.
Here's the bigoted hypocrite biased typical wikipedian model for trashing political candidates. If you ever wondered how a wikipedian manages to write a biased article and pose it off as "NPOV" (neutral point of view)...here you go. (All wiki's know what I'm talking about...you won't admit it, but that is because you are dishonest). here is the template:
Section 1: Introduce candidate. Include at least one controversey
Section 2: Brief History
Section 3: Controversey
Section 4: Allegation
Section 5: Controversey
Section 6: Allegation, Allegation, Allegation.....ad infinitum
Cite references
Yes...that is critical and the key to writing a biased wiki article...citing those precious references. Wikipedia hypocrites have embraced a fallacy of logic that states "as long as I cite references, the article is neutral".
I can cite a reference where Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a Faggot. Does that merit inclusion in John Edward's article? Lets add a section to John Edwards titled "Controversy" and begin with the following:
Controversy:
John Edwards has been criticized by many people. He has been called a thief, a bigot, a hypocrite and a faggot. Some have accused him of being a phony, a fake, and a panderer.
See how stupid this is? Yet how many biased wiki-leftists do exactly this all the time! They find anyone and everyone who has gone on record to say something negative about someone, and will include it in that person's page under the Almighty "Controversy" or "Allegations" section.
Does simply citing a reference make for neutrality? I can cite dozens of references of leftists who call various conservatives hatemongers, idiots, neocons, fools, #$$#ers, #$##heads, and things far worse. So does that justify gathering 100 such references and stuffing a conservative's wikipage chock full of cited references of ad-hominem remarks?
The wiki author is dishonest. He/she is dishonest because he/she knows precisely what I am talking about. Yes, if you are reading this and you author on wiki, you know what I am saying. Admit it. You absolutely know. I remember reading George Allen's wiki page the day before his election against mike webb. You can pull it up on wiki. Over 60% of his entire article was devoted to controversy. Everything from macacca to racism to scams. The entire article was accusation after accusation...all referenced of course! And then, moving over to Jim Webb's wiki page....we see...guess what? No controversy. None. Just a wonderful man, honored, respected. A war hero. So what makes Wikipedia biased? Stuffing a page full of allegations and controversy. The more controversy that is inserted into an individuals page, the more questionable the character and the more biased the article becomes.
Wikipedia cannot possibly ever be neutral. The only way it could ever be truly neutral is to ban allegations and controversy and stick with facts. No politician is going to be without controversy. Take any politician...ANY of them....even a liberals favorite like Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi...and I could surf the web and find dozens...hundreds of quotations smashing that person's character. Does that justify including them into the politician's article? For the biased wikipedian, yes it does. For that is the tactic they use to slant an article. If you doubt, just start pulling up some politicians. The ones with the large "allegation" and "controversy" section are the ones that the wikipedians hate.
WIKIPEDIA SHOULD REMOVE ALL SECTIONS ON ALL ARTICLES THAT ARE TITLED "CONTROVERSY" OR "ALLEGATIONS"
You would be surprised how neutral it might suddenly become.
Wikipedia: Neutral my arse. Nothing could be further from the truth.