> Take a subtle example, Ars Technica almost never says Chairman, it says Chairperson, but it will say Chairwoman (which also shows their ignorance of the origi

> Take a subtle example, Ars Technica almost never says Chairman, it says Chairperson, but it will say Chairwoman (which also shows their ignorance of the origin of Chairman). Where is your evidence for that claim? Chairwoman - About 272 results: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairwoman+site%3Aarstechnica.com https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairwoman+site%3Aar... Chairperson - About 179 results: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairperson+site%3Aarstechnica.com https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairperson+site%3Aa... Chairman - About 2,960 results: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairman+site%3Aarstechnica.com https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=chairman+site%3Aarst... > True of False (taken from Wikipedia): "Limited voting rights were gained by some women in Sweden, Britain, and some western U.S. states in the 1860s." > The answer of course is False. We have voting records from the UK (as one example) showing quite a few women on independent means voting in the 1830s How does that make it false? It doesn't state that no woman voted in the 1830s, it states that some women gained voting rights in the 1860s. The only way it's false is if no women received voting rights in the 1860s. It's not "an example of a stream of calculated deceit that has flourished in the last 20 years", it's simply an example of nobody who edited that page being aware that some women voted in the 1830s. If you have legitimate sources demonstrating they did (your link states 1843, BTW, not 1830s) then edit the Wikipedia page and add/correct that info. That's how Wikipedia works.