This is mostly intended for Ed Poor. I have dewikified the "tensor analysis" link that you put in. Usually, when one puts in such a thing, it is one's intention to "de-red" that link and create the page. I would very much advise against that. I know that you have spoken out many times against putting in things that are too abstruse for Conservapedia's goals, and I consider this a case in point. Tensors, beyond what I have just put in, are clearly beyond what we want. There are lots of places where the exact dividing line can be debated, but tensors are clearly over the line. JacobB and I discussed this recently, and agreed that they should be taken out. Accordingly, he deleted the article on exterior derivatives or the Hodge Dual (or something, I don't remember exactly what was), and I deleted a reference to the Hodge dual from the Maxwell's Equations page. That thing about the Hodge dual could have been a poster child for the statement you once made about "grad students showing off".
So why do we have this article at all? Some topics are superficially interesting to lay people. Think about string theory. There's an article about it here. There are articles about it in various popular general-distribution science magazines. None of these come anywhere close to doing justice to the topic. So what do we do? We write a glossy article that explains things at a superficial level geared to the audience, and let it go at that.
That's what I have done for tensors. The article only scratches the surface, but I think it states things correctly. I chose my words very carefully on that page. I hope you will agree that I hit the target about right.
SamHB 23:54, 17 February 2010 (EST)