The "Donald Trump" Wikipedia article is a complete disgrace

I have written many times about the blatant and extreme political bias at Wikipedia, its editors, and its management.

Any currently influential or prominent person, organization, movement or social phenomenon that the political far left and the mainstream media hates with a passion will be copiously vilified at length at Wikipedia, usually with very lengthy articles that are little more than extensive lists of mostly irrelevant minutia, much of this minutia having extremely poor standards of source reliability, often eg. citing just the personal opinion of some random academic, or simply repeating unproven allegations (often without even pointing out that the allegation is unproven). Pretty much without fail, if anything even remotely positive about that person or thing is mentioned, it will be sandwiched between negative traits and allegations. Refutations of the negative allegations will most often be absent, and even when they are sometimes mentioned, they are, quite naturally, never mentioned on their own, and instead a refutation of the refutation will always immediately follow.

In contrast, any currently influential or prominent person, organization, movement or social phenomenon that the political far left and the mainstream media likes will have a significantly more neutral (and usually comparatively shorter) article. Any negative traits of that person or thing will either not be mentioned at all, or will be mentioned very briefly and in a very dry and neutral manner, without spending too much article space on them. Often these negative traits will be sandwiched between positive traits that alleviate the negativity of those traits. These articles will invariably lack the extensive lists of irrelevant minutia that are so common on the other type of articles.

The fact is that the first type of articles are not so much encyclopedic articles. Instead, they are resources for political activism. Those articles meticulously collect all the tidbits of information, no matter how small or irrelevant, that could be used to politically attack that person or thing. They are designed to be used eg. by leftist journalists, speakers and other such people to smear that person or thing. You will not find such lists in the articles of people or things the far left doesn't care about or likes.

Curiously, the smearing campaign style of writing at Wikipedia doesn't extend to historical figures, no matter how utterly evil they were.

The perfect example of this contrast is the Wikipedia article about Donald Trump. Contrast it with the Wikipedia article about pretty much any other head of state or prominent politician, current or past. This includes the articles about eg. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin (who among themselves massacred tens of millions of people.)

You just need to look at the "contents" section of these articles to see the clear difference. For starters, the contents section for Donald Trump is twice as large as any of those others, and it's full of subsections and sub-subsections, and all in itself reads as a smearing campaign, with section titles like "support from the far right", "false statements" and "misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct".

Try to find any other article in the entirety of Wikipedia about a head of state, prominent politician, or pretty much any other person, that has a similar contents section. I won't be holding my breath.

That's right, even the articles about Adolf Hitler and Joseph Staling don't have such content sections. Instead, they have contents sections that are half the size, and significantly more neutral, only listing major events and characteristics.

Curiously, and extremely tellingly, at one point there was a section in Trump's Wikipedia page about his accolades and recognition (similar to that of many other celebrities and politicians). This section was quietly removed a couple of years ago. Heaven forbid anything positive be said about him.

The fact is that the Wikipedia Donald Trump article is a complete disgrace. It's not an encyclopedic article. It's nothing but a lengthy political smearing piece. You don't even have to like the man to recognize that this isn't an encyclopedic article. It's rather telling that even the articles about Hitler and Stalin are a thousand times more encyclopedic in content, form and tone.

Unsurprisingly, the article about Joe Biden is less than half the length, and its content section contains zero negative attributes as section titles (even though arguably he has done some very shitty things, in the past and currently.)