> you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world.
You can absolutely say that, if it's true. As it stands, I don't know of country "filled with immigrants", so it's possible your edits are getting revoked for being incendiary hyperbole.
I'm also not aware of any politician described as racist in the first paragraph of their article. Can you indicate who you have in mind?
More realistically, controversies about racism and immigration are likely to be mentioned in a section of the given article, not in the first paragraph. That strikes me as a very fair way to handle it, which conveniently disarms accusations of bias against Wikipedia.
“Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. Does it need to be 100% immigrants to count as “filled”? 50%? 25%?
Canadian residents, for example, as of 2021 [1], were 23% foreign-born, and further 2.5% non-permanent residents. In the five year period from 2016 to 2021, the number of foreign-born Canadians increased by 18% alone, which to me is significant growth. The number of non-permanent residents doubled from 2016 to 2021, and tripled again by July 2024 [2]. The share of third-generation+ Canadians, defined as those born in Canada to parents born in Canada, was 56% in 2021 [1]. When the 2026 census data is released next year, it’s estimated that number could be as low as 52%.
> “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term.
An encyclopedia is no place for subjectivity. [1]
> Canadian residents,
I don't care. I'm not here to discuss immigration. We're talking about Wikipedia and its standards. You can like immigration or be against it, but it's not Wikipedia's job to allow you to express your opinion.
This feels rather hand wavy and reductive. The bar isn’t “Wikipedia is completely unbiased and objective” - that’s a fool’s errand, it can’t be done. But we still strive to account for biases and reach for objectivity as best we can, and there are situations where language (with its subjectivity taken into due consideration) and claims clearly are not an attempt at that.
Those aren’t the same thing. I’m saying that and I did not miss the point of your comment. You can’t just declare the opposite opinion invalid like that
Have you considered the differences are because those are different people who have done much different things? I don't see a strong slant either way in these articles.
If you think about the most salient or well covered things by the news in each of their presidencies, they're right there in the header. I'd say it's difficult to write in an unbiased sense about these issues, and given the difficulty, Wikipedia has done a decent job.
I'm not seeing what's biased about Donald Trump's article?
It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased.
Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors.
It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. But it is literally the case that historians rank these two presidents at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum, and the article's tone seems to reflect that. Which isn't really an example of bias in Wikipedia - it is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say.
OP’s chosen example was terrible. I’d agree with the premise, based anecdotoly but what a terrible selection of articles to prove a point. Better to link the discussion articles where the editors actively slant the articles
People become more conservative as they age, so maybe the reality quote is about the young and the young edit Wikipedia more
"The purpose of a system is what it does". Dangerous principle to apply too literally but almost always worth considering. In this case, the purpose of abstinence-only education is to increase teenage births and the purpose of modern sex education is to decrease it.
From his 2006 speech/routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, speaking to then president George Bush:
> Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias...
