I think this is just a bit silly that you cant see your own biases Why cant you see your own biases Or had you considered the fact a good majority of Wikipedia editors share a Left of center POV by Jimmy Wales own admission The bias is hardly in a conservative direction or even neutral How can you say there isnt a decided hostility to conservative or traditional points of view on Wikipedia Wikipedias NPOV rule is meaningless considering this fact Explain to me why you think my observation of fact is absurd Wikipedia isnt a reliable source because this fact and if you hadnt been reading students in colleges in America at least are discouraged from citing it because of serious factual errors and political biases that pass for the truth  The problem here IS NOT with me   Guy I wish you could see how the world views Wikipedia and its not good Wikipedias NPOV rule is symbolic and from what I have seen no one here follows it I have read all of the rulesand I have made every effort to follow them Do everyone a favor and declare that Wikipedia is a Leftwing site eg  a blog It comes down to an ideosyncratic application of the rules to fit your worldviews FM writes for the Democratic Underground Jimsch has confessed to having Marxist sentiments and you have confessed to being sympathetic to homosexuality So how can you say that there isnt a Left of center bias on Wikipedia  I am mentioning the fact I Googled FMs handle and found posts under his handle on the decidedly LiberalSocialist Democratic Underground because it shows where his political biases lay How then can he be anymore objective than I FM said I weakened his viewpoint that Dominionism was a threat or a problem by adding the viewpoints of selfprofessed Christian Reconstructionists to the Dominionism article How can you say that hes neutral anymore than I am neutral My beef with that particular article is that it seems to stereotype all conservative American Christians as wanting to replace the US Constitution with a neoPuritan theocracy  Wikipedia lacks the same quality as Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to maintaining a nonpartisan perspective I consider myself knowledgeable about the Christian right at least the Catholic faction therof and I object to what I see as the blatant stereotyping of conservative Christians The fact Chip Berlet or Katherine Yurica are considered experts furthers my perception of bias Mr Berlet I will concede is more factual than say Ms Yurica but he paints with a very broad brush that ignores the diversity of the Christian right Their writings are riddled with strawman attacks guilt by association glaring generalizations etc The series of articles on Dominionism are riddled with factual errors and POV Is it NPOV to limit the content to a single POV where only those who share a single POV are granted expert status I will leave Wikipedia alone for awhile and perhaps limit myself to editing on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxoriented pages When it comes to politics Wikipedia is of limited informative value