Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.[3]
Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer—or more ideologically homogeneous—contributors are more likely to reflect an editorial bias.[4][5] Multiple studies have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia in both article content and editor sanctioning.[6][7]
Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias.[8][9] A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies. These political topics accounted for approximately 25% of the disputes observed across all language versions studied.[10]
A 2012 study by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu of the Harvard Business School examined a sample of 28,382 articles related to U.S. politics as of January 2011, measuring their degree of bias on a "slant index" based on a method developed by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro in 2010, to measure bias in newspaper media.[11] This slant index purports to measure an ideological lean toward either the Democratic or Republican parties, based on key phrases within the text such as "war in Iraq", "civil rights", "trade deficit", "economic growth", "illegal immigration" and "border security". Each phrase is assigned a slant index based on how often it is used by Democratic or Republican members of U.S. Congress. This lean rating is assigned to a Wikipedia contribution that includes the same key phrase. The authors concluded that older Wikipedia articles were mostly biased to the left, although recent articles are more neutral. They suggest that articles did not change their bias significantly due to revision, but rather that over time newer articles with contrasting viewpoints played a role in rebalancing the average perspectives among the entries.[12][13]: 4–5
In a subsequent study, the same researchers compared about 4,000 Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics (written by an online community) with the corresponding articles in Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of bias. The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. Entries about immigration trended toward Republican. They further found that "[t]he difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions" and, when articles were substantially revised, the difference in bias compared to Britannica was statistically negligible. The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral".[1][6]
A 2022 study examined quotations from journalistic and other media sources that were included within Wikipedia entries on the English edition. The objective was to assess whether there was a prevalence of liberal or conservative sources. The study identified a moderate but systematic prevalence of liberal journalistic sources. Furthermore, the analysis revealed no clear correlation between the political leanings of a news source and its reliability, indicating that the moderate prevalence of liberal news sources may not be solely attributed to the quest for source reliability.[7]
A 2023 study compared articles on controversial topics across multiple community-managed wikis: the study intended to test whether the policy orientation of a collaborative wiki project would produce a slant in the content, by selecting the crowd of contributors. The findings showed that the content of wikis with explicit ideological biases, such as RationalWiki and Conservapedia, is more unbalanced than that of wikis (such as Wikipedia) or encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) advocating neutrality. Wikipedia's content had a relative slant[which?] comparable to that of Britannica, while both RationalWiki and Conservapedia were "more loaded with moral content".[14]
A study published in 2015 focusing on the English edition of Wikipedia examined the removal of positive or negative information in biographies of U.S. senators. The researchers introduced positive and negative content, sourced from reliable references, into the biographical entries of U.S. senators. Their findings revealed that negative content was more likely to be removed and were removed at a faster rate compared to positive content. The researchers concluded that a significant editorial bias exists in Wikipedia entries related to current U.S. senators. However, when a similar test was conducted on the Wikipedia pages of recently retired and deceased senators, the same discrepancy in the removal of positive and negative content was not observed. This suggests that the bias identified is specific to the pages of active politicians and does not indicate a systemic issue within Wikipedia. The authors concluded that information generated through collaborative projects such as Wikipedia may be susceptible to an editorial bias that favors politically active individuals.[15]
User collaboration
A study conducted in 2013 focused on users who openly declared their support for either the US Democratic or Republican parties. The research indicated that these users tended to contribute more frequently to voices aligning with their own political orientation. However, they did not exhibit polarized editing behavior, as they were not inclined to avoid collaboration with political opponents while also not showing a preference for collaboration exclusively with allies. The authors proposed that the shared identity of being a Wikipedian might outweigh potentially divisive aspects of personal identity, such as political affiliation. This finding distinguishes Wikipedia from other social platforms, such as Twitter and blogs, where users often exhibit strong polarization by predominantly interacting with users who share similar political orientations. In contrast, Wikipedia can be characterized as a platform where users display a higher degree of interaction across political orientations, akin to forums and similar platforms.[16]
In a 2016 working paper focusing on the English Wikipedia, researchers investigated the behavior of users who contribute to articles related to US politics. Building upon the terminology introduced in their previous article from 2012, Greenstein, Zhu, and Yuan Gu found that editors are slightly more likely to contribute to articles with an opposite slant to their own—a tendency that the authors called opposites attract. They further found that debates on Wikipedia tend to exhibit a "prevalence of unsegregated conversations over time", meaning that the debates on Wikipedia tend to involve editors of differing views—which the authors called unsegregated—as opposed to debates involving only editors with homogeneous views (segregated). They also found that the degree of editor bias decreases over time and experience, and decreases faster for editors involved in very slanted material: "[t]he largest declines are found among contributors who edit or add content to articles that have more biases." They also estimated that, on average, it takes about one year longer for Republican material to reach a neutral viewpoint than for Democratic material.[4]
A study published in 2019, conducted among American users of the English version, produced similar findings. The study highlighted a significant political orientation bias among users contributing to political topics, finding a trend that the more edits made to an entry, the more balanced the average political orientation of the contributing users becomes. The study also indicated that the quality of articles, as recognized by the Wikipedia community, improves as the diversity of political orientation among contributors increases. User groups composed of politically polarized individuals generally produce better articles, on average, compared to groups consisting of highly politically aligned users or even moderates. Positive effects of polarization were observed not only in articles related to politics but also in those concerning social issues and even science. Politically polarized groups engage in frequent disagreements, stimulating focused debates that result in higher quality, more robust, and comprehensive edits. However, these findings are subject to limitations. The contributors who participated may suffer a self-selection bias, which can influence outcomes.[17][18]
In a 2012 study focusing on edit wars within Wikipedia, it was suggested that consensus can often be reached within a reasonable timeframe, even in controversial articles. The conflicts that tend to prolong these edit wars are primarily driven by the influx of new users. It was observed that most edit wars are carried out by a small number of users who are frequently engaged in conflicts, despite their low overall productivity. In these debates, resolution is often reached not based on the merits of the arguments but rather due to external intervention, exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group over the other.[19]
Drawing from experimental research findings, Holtz et al. proposed a theoretical model of knowledge production in Wikipedia, employing the concept of "productive friction". This model posits that a certain level of interpretative conflict within a group is necessary for the collective process to generate knowledge. The model draws an analogy to the socio-cognitive conflict model used in psychology to elucidate individual learning. According to this hypothesis, if the tensions or friction within a group are too low, the potential for knowledge construction becomes limited since the existing knowledge is deemed sufficient to address the problem at hand. Conversely, if the friction within a community of contributors becomes excessively high, it can lead to the dismissal of respective ideas or even the division of the group, similar to how an individual may struggle to adapt and learn when confronted with an overwhelming amount of novelty.[20]
Another study found that a majority of editors on the French Wikipedia had a propensity to share equally in a dictator game. This propensity was correlated with their involvement on Wikipedia (as measured by the time spent and attachment).[21]
Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias
In 2016, Bloomberg News stated, "The encyclopedia's reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very."[22] In 2017, Wired magazine noted on article featuring views on alternative of Wikipedia as follows;[1]
"It’s true that the reach and impact of right-wing encyclopedias like Infogalactic and Metapedia remains muted, for now. Yet their mere existence is a sign that the appeal of a centralized forum for hashing out the truth is fading. Wikipedia might find that its days at the top are numbered."
— Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right - Wired
In 2018, Haaretz noted "Wikipedia has succeeded in being accused of being both too liberal and too conservative, and has critics from across the spectrum", while also noting that Wikipedia is "usually accused of being too liberal".[23]
In 2020, The Critic, a British political and cultural magazine, published a paper by two American academics titled "The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia".[24] The research argued that Wikipedia's internal policies, though well-intentioned, have failed to achieve their stated objectives. The article noted that left-leaning sources are often regarded as “reliable,” while conservative viewpoints are dismissed or marginalized. The decisions about which sources to trust rest in the hands of Wikipedia’s editors, a group that critics say is largely composed of individuals with left-leaning views.
One of the key findings from the paper was that articles aligned with left-leaning perspectives are treated as neutral and factual, while opposing viewpoints are labeled unreliable or fringe. For instance, discussions about what constitutes a "reliable" source are often held at the "reliable sources noticeboard," where editors collectively decide which media outlets are deemed credible. Critics say this process overwhelmingly favors left-leaning media.
Pirate Wires, a U.S.-based media outlet focusing on the intersection of technology, politics, and culture , also researched on the bias in Wikipedia. Their analysis, titled "How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg,[25] highlights how the platform’s reliance on a predominantly left-leaning set of “reliable sources” skews its content. Rindsberg points out that conservative media outlets are often blacklisted from being used as sources, leaving Wikipedia's editors with a narrow pool of left-leaning outlets to draw from.
CNN suggested in 2022 that Wikipedia's ideological bias "may match the ideological bias of the news ecosystem".[26]The Boston Globe opined, "A Wikipedia editor's interest in an article sprouts from their values and opinions, and their contributions are filtered through their general interpretation of reality. Edict or no, a neutral point of view is impossible. Not even a Wikipedia editor can transcend that."[27]Slate, in a 2022 article, stated "Right-wing commentators have grumbled about [Wikipedia]'s purported left-wing bias for years, but they have been unable to offer a viable alternative encyclopedia option: A conservative version of Wikipedia, Conservapedia, has long floundered with minimal readership", while also noting that conservatives "have not generally attacked Wikipedia as extensively" as other media sources.[28] Also in 2022, Vice News reported, "Researchers have found that Wikipedia has a slight Democratic bias on issues of US politics because many of Wikipedia's editors are international, and the average country has views that are to the left of the Democratic party on issues such as healthcare, climate change, corporate power, capitalism, etc."[29]
Liberal and left-wing bias
Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has been critical of Wikipedia since he was laid off as the only editorial employee and departed from the project in 2002.[30][31][32] He went on to found and work for competitors to Wikipedia, including Citizendium and Everipedia. Among other criticisms, Sanger has been vocal in his view that Wikipedia's articles present a left-wing and liberal or "establishment point of view".[33][34][35][36] Sanger has cited a number of examples for what he views as left-wing and liberal bias, such as that "Drug legalisation, dubbed drug liberalisation by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalisation policies" and that the Wikipedia article on Joe Biden does not sufficiently reflect "the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations.[33][34][35][36] Because of these perceived biases, Sanger views Wikipedia as untrustworthy.[36] He has also accused Wikipedia of abandoning its neutrality policy (neutral point of view).[37][38]
Researchers[39] have analyzed the biases of Wikipedia's editors and how some changes at Wikipedia, including how "Pro-Fringe" editors tend to leave the project, have improved its credibility. These changes include improvements to the NPOV policy. They also noted that Sanger does not like those changes:
The English Wikipedia transformed its content over time through a gradual reinterpretation of its ambiguous Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline, the core rule regarding content on Wikipedia. This had meaningful consequences, turning an organization that used to lend credence and false balance to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and extremism into a proactive debunker, fact-checker and identifier of fringe discourse....
Furthermore, the founders of Wikipedia have not intervened to cause new interpretations of the guidelines among the userbase. Sanger, who crafted the core NPOV rule, has condemned the interpretations of the guideline that emerged over time.[39]
Conservapedia
American lawyer and Christian conservative activist Andrew Schlafly founded an online encyclopedia named Conservapedia in 2006 to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.[40] Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias on Wikipedia, including assertions it is "anti-American", "anti-Christian" and "anti-capitalism".[41]
Infogalactic
American far-right activist[42]Vox Day founded the online encyclopedia Infogalactic in 2017[43] to counter what he views as "the left-wing thought police who administer [Wikipedia]".[44][45]
The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that.[46]
In 2007, Wales said that claims of liberal bias on Wikipedia "are not supported by the facts".[47]
During the Gamergate controversy in 2014, in response to an email from a computer science student claiming that Wikipedia has a "complete lack of any sort of attempt at neutrality regarding Gamergate", Wales allegedly wrote, "It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that gamergate is 'really about ethics in journalism' when every single experience I have personally had with it involved pro-gg people insulting, threatening, doxxing, etc.", and that the movement "has been permanently tarnished and highjacked [sic] by a handful of people who are not what you would hope".[48] Wales defended his comments in response to backlash from supporters of Gamergate, saying that, "it isn't about what I believe. Gg is famous for harassment. Stop and think about why."[49]
In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations made by Larry Sanger of having a particular political bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that, "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become."[50]
In a 2023 interview with Lex Fridman, when asked if Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias, Wales said that:[51]
Yeah, so I don't think so, not broadly. And I think you can always point to specific entries and talk about specific biases, but that's part of the process of Wikipedia. Anyone can come and challenge and to go on about that. But I see fairly often on Twitter, some quite extreme accusations of bias. And I think actually I don't see it. I don't buy that. And if you ask people for an example, they normally struggle and depending on who they are and what it's about. So it’s certainly true that some people who have quite fringe viewpoints and who knows the full rush of history in 500 years, they might be considered to be pathbreaking geniuses. But at the moment, quite fringe views. And they're just unhappy that Wikipedia doesn’t report on their fringe views as being mainstream. And that, by the way, goes across all kinds of fields.
In February 2023, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein published a research article in the Journal of Holocaust Research accusing a number of English Wikipedia editors of engaging in a campaign to "[promote] a skewed version of history on Wikipedia", claiming that their actions "[whitewash] the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and [bolster] stereotypes about Jews".[64][65][66] The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee subsequently opened a case to investigate and evaluate the actions of editors in the affected articles.[65] Ultimately, the Committee ruled to ban two editors from contributing to the topic areas, although Klein criticized the proposed remedies as "[lacking] depth and consequence".[67]
Christoph Hube and Anna Samoilenko have criticized Wikipedia, in particular the English Wikipedia, for its insufficient representation of non-Western subject matter, which Samoilenko has deemed "Eurocentric".[68][69] Anna Samoilenko has said that Wikipedia "reiterates similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography".[69]
In 2022, several conservative cultural and political figures from Spain published a manifesto alleging a "lack of neutrality and ... obvious political bias in [the Spanish] Wikipedia" and claimed that the Spanish Wikipedia is "edited by people who, hiding behind anonymous editor accounts, take the opportunity to carry out political activism, either by including data erroneous or false, or selecting news from the media with a clear political and ideological bias, which refer to controversial, distorted, insidious or inaccurate information". The manifesto was signed by Juan Carlos Girauta, Álvaro Vargas Llosa, Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, Joaquín Leguina, Albert Rivera, Daniel Lacalle and Toni Cantó, among other personalities.[74][better source needed]
In a July 2022 article, Claudia Peiró from Infobae criticized the Spanish Wikipedia's entry on Cuba for describing the country as a "democracy without parties" with a "free, direct and secret vote".[78]
CAMERA campaign
In April 2008, The Electronic Intifada published an article containing e-mails exchanged by members of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors".[79][80] Five Wikipedia editors involved in a CAMERA campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that the project's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing by ideologically like-minded individuals".[79]
^Yasseri, Taha; Menczer, Filippo (2021). "Can the Wikipedia moderation model rescue the social marketplace of ideas?". Communications of the ACM. In Press. arXiv:2104.13754. doi:10.1145/3578645. S2CID233423271.
^Sato, Yumiko (2021-01-09). 日本語版ウィキペディアで「歴史修正主義」が広がる理由と解決策 [Reasons Why "Historical Revisionism" is Widespread on Japanese Wikipedia and Solutions for It]. Yumiko Sato's Music Therapy Journal (in Japanese). Retrieved 2021-08-23.
^ abBeam, Alex (3 May 2008). "War of the virtual Wiki-worlds". The Boston Globe. The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on 1 January 2009. Retrieved 4 May 2008. In what was probably not a very smart idea, Gilead Ini, a senior research analyst for CAMERA, put out an e-mail call for 10 volunteers "to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". [...] More than 50 sympathizers answered the call, and Ini put his campaign into motion. In follow-up e-mails to his recruits, Ini emphasized the secrecy of the campaign: "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions", he wrote. "Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal . . . is trying to hijack Wikipedia." [...] Someone leaked four weeks' worth of communications from within Ini's organization, and the quotes weren't pretty. Describing the Wiki-campaign, a member of Ini's corps writes, "We will go to war after we have built an army, equipped [sic] it, trained." There is also some back-and-forth about the need to become Wikipedia administrators, to better influence the encyclopedia's articles.
Untuk kegunaan lain, lihat Jalan tol. Jalan bebas hambatan di Amerika Serikat. Jalan bebas hambatan (Inggris: Freeway atau Highway) adalah jalan raya yang dibelah oleh median jalan atau pemisah jalan dan merupakan jalan dengan akses terbatas. Umumnya jalan bebas hambatan dibangun untuk mengatasi kemacetan lalu lintas ataupun untuk mempersingkat jarak dari satu tempat ke tempat lain. Di Indonesia, istilah jalan bebas hambatan sering digunakan secara bergantian dengan jalan tol, karena jalan be...
Minor league baseball teamEnid, Oklahomaminor league baseball teams1904–1951(1904, 1908–1910, 1920–1926, 1950–1951) Enid, Oklahoma Minor league affiliationsClassClass D (1904)Class C (1908–1910)Class D (1920–1921)Class C (1922–1923)Class D (1924)Class C (1924-1926, 1950–1951)LeagueSouthwestern League (1904)Western Association (1908–1910, 1920–1923)Oklahoma State League (1924)Southwestern League (1924–1926)Western Association (1950–1951)Major league affiliationsTeam...
КірвіллерKirviller Країна Франція Регіон Гранд-Ест Департамент Мозель Округ Сарргемін Кантон Сарральб Код INSEE 57366 Поштові індекси 57430 Координати 48°57′12″ пн. ш. 6°59′04″ сх. д.H G O Висота 213 - 246 м.н.р.м. Площа 2,54 км² Населення 139 (01-2020[1]) Густота 58,27 ос./км² Ро
Handley Page HP.32 Hamlet Handley Page Hamlet en la revista Flight del 4 de noviembre de 1926. Tipo Monoplano de cabinaFabricante Handley Page Aircraft CompanyPrimer vuelo 19 de octubre de 1926Retirado 1929Usuario principal Real Fuerza AéreaN.º construidos 1[editar datos en Wikidata] El Handley Page HP.32 Hamlet fue un transporte monoplano de seis pasajeros británico, diseñado y construido por Handley Page.[1] Sólo fue construido un ejemplar, encargado por el Ministerio ...
PT IDExpress Logistik IndonesiaJenisSwastaIndustriKurirDidirikan2019KantorpusatJakarta, IndonesiaJasaPengiriman, logistikKaryawan20.000(2020)Situs webwww.idexpress.com PT ID Express Logistik Indonesia, atau lebih dikenal sebagai IDExpress (digayakan sebagai iD EXPRESS), merupakan perusahaan yang bergerak dalam bidang pengiriman dan logistik yang bermarkas di Jakarta, Indonesia. Sejarah ID Express secara resmi berdiri pada Maret 2019. Namun untuk pertama kalinya, melayani masyarakat dan menjad...
Election for the governorship of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 1982 Oklahoma gubernatorial election ← 1978 November 2, 1982 1986 → Nominee George Nigh Tom Daxon Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 548,159 332,207 Percentage 62.0% 37.6% County results Nigh: 50–60% 60–70% 70–80% 80–90% Governor before election George Nigh Democratic ...
أوسكار أرماندو دياز معلومات شخصية الميلاد 15 أكتوبر 1970(1970-10-15)سانتا روزا دي ليما [لغات أخرى] الوفاة 12 ديسمبر 1998 (عن عمر ناهز 28 عاماً)سانتا روزا دي ليما [لغات أخرى] مركز اللعب مهاجم الجنسية السلفادور المسيرة الاحترافية1 سنوات فريق م. (هـ.) 1996 ليمني...
Sikh triangular flag This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Nishan Sahib – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Nishan Sahib (Modern version)Nishan Sahib (Modern version)DesignTriangular orange or saffron flag with Khanda sy...
Crater on the Moon Feature on the moonPawseyLRO WAC imageCoordinates44°30′N 145°00′E / 44.5°N 145.0°E / 44.5; 145.0Diameter60 kmDepthUnknownColongitude216° at sunriseEponymJoseph L. Pawsey Oblique view from Lunar Orbiter 5, facing west Pawsey is a worn impact crater that lies next to the northern outer ramparts of the crater Wiener, on the far side of the Moon. It was named in honour of the Australian radiophysicist and radio astronomer Joseph Pawsey.[1 ...
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Nickelodeon Italian TV channel – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2013) (Learn ho...
Venezuelan TV series or program Válgame DiosGenreTelenovelaCreated byMónica MontáñezWritten by Gerardo Blanco Mónica Montáñez Doris Seguí Ángel del Cerro Directed byJosé AlcaldeStarring Sabrina Seara Eduardo Orozco Ricardo Álamo Opening themeBlanco y negro by MalúCountry of originVenezuelaOriginal languageSpanishNo. of episodes144ProductionExecutive producerCarolina De JacoboProducers Francisco De Pasquale Jesús Gavidia Production locationsCaracas, VenezuelaRunning time42-45...
The following is a selective listing of Italian singer Alexia's discography. She had four number-one singles in Italy. Studio albums Fan Club (1997) Remix Album 98 (1998) The Party (1998) Happy (1999) The Hits (2000) Mad for Music (2001) Alexia (2002) Il cuore a modo mio (2003) Gli occhi grandi della luna (2004) Da grande (2005) Le più belle di… Alexia (2007) Ale (2008) Collections (2009) Ale & C (2009) Stars (2010) iCanzonissime (2013) Tu puoi se vuoi (2015) Quell'altra (2017) My Xmas...
Tom MischTom Misch performing live at The NovoBackground informationBirth nameThomas Isaac Misch[1]Also known asSupershyBorn (1995-06-25) June 25, 1995 (age 28)[2][3]London, EnglandGenres Neo soul[4] nu jazz funk jazz[5] hip-hop[6][5] electronic[5] jazz-funk acid jazz R&B jazz rap ambient nu-disco alternative Instrument(s)Vocalsguitarviolindrumsbass guitarsaxophoneYears active2012–presentLabels Beyond the Groove Blue N...
Ponte Principe Amedeo Savoia AostaApresentaçãoTipo ponte rodoviáriaAbertura 1942Atravessa Rio TibreEstatuto patrimonial Herança nacional italiana (d)LocalizaçãoLocalização Roma Capitale (d) ItáliaCoordenadas 41° 53′ 59″ N, 12° 27′ 48″ Leditar - editar código-fonte - editar Wikidata Ponte Principe Amedeo Savoia Aosta Ponte Principe Amedeo Savoia Aosta, conhecido também como Ponte Principe ou Ponte PASA (um acrônimo), é uma ponte que liga o Lungotevere dei ...
Hörður Magnússon Informasi pribadiNama lengkap Hörður Björgvin MagnússonTanggal lahir 11 Februari 1993 (umur 30)Tempat lahir Reykjavík, IslandiaTinggi 190 m (620 ft)Posisi bermain BekInformasi klubKlub saat ini A.C. Cesena (pinjaman dari Juventus)Nomor 17Karier junior1998–2010 Fram2011-2013 JuventusKarier senior*Tahun Tim Tampil (Gol)2009–2010 Fram 6 (0)2013– Juventus 0 (0)2013–2014 → Spezia Calcio (pinjaman) 22 (0)2014– → Cesena (pinjaman) 10 (0)Tim nasio...
В Википедии есть статьи о других людях с такой фамилией, см. Эттер. Иван Севастьянович фон-Эттерфин. Johan Emil von Etter Дата рождения 24 июля (5 августа) 1863(1863-08-05) Дата смерти 12 октября 1938(1938-10-12) (75 лет) Место смерти Порвоо, Финляндия Принадлежность Российская империя Род вой...
Painting by Gustave Courbet A Burial at OrnansArtistGustave CourbetYear1849–50MediumOil on canvasDimensions315 cm × 660 cm (124 in × 260 in)LocationMusée d'Orsay, Paris A Burial at Ornans (French: Un enterrement à Ornans, also known as A Funeral at Ornans) is a painting of 1849–50 by Gustave Courbet. It is widely regarded as a major turning point in 19th-century French art. The painting records a funeral in Courbet's birthplace, the small town...
American poet (1915–1960) Joy DavidmanBornHelen Joy Davidman(1915-04-18)18 April 1915New York City, U.S.Died13 July 1960(1960-07-13) (aged 45)Oxford, EnglandNationalityAmericanOccupation(s)Poet, authorKnown forSmoke on the Mountain: An Interpretation of the Ten Commandments; life with CS LewisSpouses William Lindsay Gresham (m. 1942; div. 1954) C. S. Lewis (m. 1956)Children2, David and Dougl...
