Changes

# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a ''NY Times'' book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even though the reviewer is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page. The Schlafly article has been repeatedly vadalized.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=449399938&oldid=448715966|author=Mooreturns|date=Sept. 9, 2011|title=Phyllis Schlafly}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=next&oldid=351501626</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=319693606&oldid=319410037</ref>

# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a ''NY Times'' book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even though the reviewer is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page. The Schlafly article has been repeatedly vadalized.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=449399938&oldid=448715966|author=Mooreturns|date=Sept. 9, 2011|title=Phyllis Schlafly}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=next&oldid=351501626</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=319693606&oldid=319410037</ref>

# The Wikipedia page on [[John Lott]], a respected conservative commentator and academic, cites supposed errors in Lott's characterization of [[liberal bias]] against gun owners in his book ''More Guns, Less Crime''. In fact, Lott's figures are accurate, and Wikipedia's sanctimonious claim of "bias" for his exposure of liberal media bias smacks of [[liberal hypocrisy]]. The rest of the entry is also filled with other unfounded smears and accusations attempting to silence his factual conservatism, characteristic of Wikipedia's [[liberal censorship]]. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</ref>   

# The Wikipedia page on [[John Lott]], a respected conservative commentator and academic, cites supposed errors in Lott's characterization of [[liberal bias]] against gun owners in his book ''More Guns, Less Crime''. In fact, Lott's figures are accurate, and Wikipedia's sanctimonious claim of "bias" for his exposure of liberal media bias smacks of [[liberal hypocrisy]]. The rest of the entry is also filled with other unfounded smears and accusations attempting to silence his factual conservatism, characteristic of Wikipedia's [[liberal censorship]]. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Media_bias_and_defensive_gun_use</ref>   

# Despite Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neo#Neologisms policy on not including "neologisms"], the disgusting and hateful term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum] is listed on Wikipedia and ranks #2 in Google. This was a smear term specifically invented by gay rights activist [[Dan Savage]] to be derogatory of Republican [[Presidential_Election_2012|Presidential candidate]] [[Rick Santorum]]. Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons also is said to restrict material that may cause "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum harm to the subject]." The page has existed for five years, was nominated for deletion, but all the liberal editors of Wikipedia had their say, and the article has been kept.

# Despite Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neo#Neologisms policy on not including "neologisms"], the disgusting and hateful term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum] is listed on Wikipedia and ranks #2 in Google. This was a smear term specifically invented by gay rights activist [[Dan Savage]] to be derogatory of Republican [[Presidential_Election_2012|Presidential candidate]] [[Rick Santorum]]. Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons also is said to restrict material that may cause "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Santorum harm to the subject]." The page has existed for five years, was nominated for deletion, but all the liberal editors of Wikipedia had their say, and the article has been kept. The article was also repeatedly nominated for "good article" status.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_%28neologism%29/GA1</ref>

# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers.  In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref>  Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.

# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers.  In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref>  Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.

# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>