| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | # Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception. | | # Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception. |
| | # Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref> | | # Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref> |
| − | # In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia currently writes in its article on [[Jesus]] the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians, which Wikipedia fails to mention. And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed? It offers an article entitled "Jesus as myth."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_as_myth&action=history</ref> Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its Jesus article a statement like its claim that "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." What reputable encyclopedia other than Wikipedia has such unscholarly claims that Jesus never existed? | + | # In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim. |
| | # Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration. | | # Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration. |
| | # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''. | | # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''. |