i think this is just a bit silly that you can't see your own biases why can't 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 isn't a decided hostility to conservative or traditional points of view on wikipedia wikipedia's npov rule is meaningless considering this fact explain to me why you think my observation of fact is absurd wikipedia isn't a reliable source because this fact and if you hadn't 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 it's not good wikipedia's npov rule is symbolic and from what i have seen no one here follows it i have read all of the rules and i have made every effort to follow them do everyone a favor and declare that wikipedia is a left wing site e g a blog it comes down to an ideosyncratic application of the rules to fit your worldviews fm writes for the democratic underground jim sch has confessed to having marxist sentiments and you have confessed to being sympathetic to homosexuality so how can you say that there isn't a left of center bias on wikipedia i am mentioning the fact i googled fm's handle and found posts under his handle on the decidedly liberal socialist 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 self professed christian reconstructionists to the dominionism article how can you say that he's 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 u s constitution with a neo puritan theocracy wikipedia lacks the same quality as encyclopedia britannica when it comes to maintaining a non partisan 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 orthodox oriented pages when it comes to politics wikipedia is of limited informative value