` January 2011 (UTC)  *It is utterly ridiculous for people wih obvious ethno-political biases to be so zealously controling the wording of this article so as to create the erroneous illusion to the larger world that this libelous phenomenon is for the exclusive use and burden of their own childish victimhood, while denigrating others for their ``victim complex``. Palin's usage of ``blood libel`` is correct, common and understood to large portions of her American audience - evangelical Christians, who, ironically, use that phrase to defend all Jews (many of whom disparage these, their very own defenders) against the ancient, and Medieval, prejudices of the more 'orthodox' Christian sects. This 'blood libel' originated, not in Medievel myths, but in much earlier 'Catholic' church teachings of the Jews' alleged 'liability' for demanding the blood of Christ on the cross. Never mind that such teaching ignores the fact that Christ was not 'stoned' (the traditional Jewish form of execution), but was nailed to a cross by Roman soldiers. Evangelicals teach that it was Satan, who cried ``Crucify him!`` from the anonimous safety of the crowd, and they believe that all Jews make up a tribe of the Nation of Israel 'chosen' as priests by an unerring God, under an inalterable 'covenant', in his universal plan for an eternal theocratic paradise. They are extremely careful to always support, not disparage or offend, ``God's Chosen People``. I can assure you that every Eangelical Christian knew exactly what Palin was saying, without referring to any reference works. The fact that Palin's use has caused such a national 'stir' demands an all encompassing explanation of the term on Wiki. Need we seek some higher form of arbitration to get the whole story told, here, or must we just accept the tyrannies of the minority, and start a truly objective site, elsewhere?   21:00, 16`