Sometimes I do the odd grammar fix or link with an IP address. Having a username just makes you a _target for ideologues as I've discovered to my cost.
Evidence That Wikipedia Has Always (At Times) Had An Anti-Religious Bias
The amount of times that the words right, wrong, real, good or true are put in quotation marks (if truth doesn't exist then nothing on Wikipedia is true and that defeats the whole point of the website for goodness sake!) is a clear indication that Wikipedians are mainly postmodernists. You can't say that there is no objective truth and be religious. You could be religious and say that since different religions teach different things God would forgive you for making an honest mistake.
The Shoehorning article. The whole text of it is an anti-religious polemic and as such is a blatant violation of the Neutral Point Of View policy.
The Mein Kampf Wikiquote article spends more time making him out to be a Christian than an anti-Semite, a warmongerer etc.
Quotes in Wikiquote that are anti-religious very often being put in bold; even if they're by people who were religious (such as the Lord Acton page, one user, Kalki if I remember correctly, in the talk page for said article even flat out declaring that he was biased and after seeing his page he's clearly anti-religion).
The Quebec article describes Catholicism as a cult. Ironic how much blatant bias there is on a website that's supposed to be neutral. The NPOV policy is a joke and has been for many years; if not from the very beginning.
Although a website that anyone can edit and the vast majority of people are Christian in the English speaking world quotes in Wikiquote are anti-Christianity far more often than pro-Christianity or any religion at all.Here is a glaring example.
Far more userboxes are anti- than pro-any religion or even religion in general and peddle the old atheist chestnut that religion and reason are enemies (everybody thinks reason is on his particular side in all matters) even though we're not the ones who think a huge explosion came not only from nothing but also by nothing and at random.
Religion was listed in the Superstition box and so is efficacy of prayer. Young Earth Creationism was also in said box; creationism is stupid, sure, but I fail to see how it's a superstition.
For no reason that I can find there's a fictional atheists and agnostics category but fictional Roman Catholics etc. categories are gone.
The misinformation series only came along after the alternative facts controversy during the Trump administration and not during any period where a liberal's statement was considered dishonest.
If the mainstream media all take the same side on an issue then the article will look highly biased toward that viewpoint. From the Gamergate controversy talk page (emphasis added):
"Anasaitis, just a quick note on our Neutral Point of View policy. It doesn't mean that we're supposed to tell every side like those ProCon books. NPOV says that we as editors are supposed to neutrally summarize (i.e., fairly, accurately, without bias, etc.) what reliable sources say about the subject, and that we're supposed to do so in a way that is roughly proportional to the weight of those sources. Our article reflects what virtually all reliable sources discuss, which is (a) harassment of mostly women in the games industry, (b) ethics claims that have been dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, or groundless, and (c) that this is a right-wing, anti-feminist and anti-diversity cultural backlash. Whether you or I or anyone actually agrees with that assessment doesn't matter. We're here to summarize what reliable sources say, that's all. Woodroar (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)"
Though this user believes that God gives men and women different roles in life, he knows that these roles are equal in dignity, and that one gender is not to be exalted above the other.
