Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.
Stuff I've done elsewhere
I was born Methodist, raised a liberalBaptist, and now refer to myself as a Zen Baptist. Ever since I was young I've had an interest in religion and mythology. In high school I became interested in philosophy, and began reading about "occult" topics as an extension of mythology studies. I took a little time off between high school and college and spent most of it in the library going through most of the books on religion, mythology, philosophy, and occultism. I majored in English (in theory focused on composition, in practice focused on literature), minored in Secondary Education, and took way too many elective courses.
Went through the articles that link to "LGBT issues and Voodoo" and changed it to "LGBT topics and Voodoo."
Worked with Dougweller in removing all mentions, uses, or links to or of http://historyhuntersinternational.org/, a blog with no evidence of credentials (if they are professors, why would they not want their name associated with that work in a more publically recognized journal?), that contains some crackpot ideas (Alexander the Great's existence should be doubted like Jesus?).
I replaced/removed all uses of The Dying God.com since it's a self-published source (and in a few cases, counter to most other sources).
Reminder for future conversations: Here is where I pointed out that Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Sikh, Taoist, Deist, and even (Schopenhauerian) atheistic 6000-year-old young earth creationism would exist if there was any valid evidence that the world was that young.
The difference between realism and conspiracy theorism:
Realism: 1 1 = 2
Conspiracy theorism: 1[1][2] 1[3] =[4]2[5]0[6] ergo, math is a conspiracy by Catholic Freemasons to destroy marriage through government enforced homosexuality![7]
^(which must be a reference to the one world government)
^(aha, proof this is a papist lie, so we need to subtract what follows!)
^(this repetition of numbers is part of Kabbalistic numerology, proof that the Masons are involved)
^(equal sign is proof that the gay mafia is involved)
^(two represents marriage, but we have it being equated through homosexuality to two separate individuals being tied together by the Pope!)
^(of course, since we have to subtract it, it comes out to 1 minus 1, or 0, is equal 2, which shows their opposition to marriage)
^(they've even hidden the number 7 in here as numerological proof)
"All politicians lie" misses the point that not all untruths are equal. 2 2=4, when properly understood, is universally true. "Two missed anniversaries two unscheduled fishing trips = one angry wife" is properly understood as a social statement rather than a mathematical one. 2 2=? and ? 2≠4 are potentially true but woefully incomplete (and if a response to later statements, intended to point to untruths). 2 2 = 5 is technically true in some engineering contexts (large quantities of 2 and small quantities of 5). 2 2=10 is true in Base 4 but that only matters in a couple of dead languages and some computer science contexts. 2 2=7 is just plain wrong. "2 and 2 cannot be added because they're the same thing" is a convoluted denial of reality. "Addition is a lie" is the sort of insanity that should immediately disqualify anyone from being taken seriously for anything. Mainstream politicians stick to the wife joke, 2 2=?, ? 2≠4, 2 2=5, and 2 2=10 -- statements that are potentially true within specific contexts but false in others. Mainstream but near-fascist politicians like to follow 2 2=? with "some people say 2 2=7 but I'm bad at math" to rally math-deniers while appeasing moderates. QAnon and similar movements make "Addition is a lie" statements to push the Overton window such that politicians arguing "2 2=7" with a straight face don't need to qualify their statements because at least they're still admitting that numbers are a concept. This is why we don't treat "both sides" as equally untruthful. This is why we have only articles on certain politicians lying but not others. This is why we have only articles on conspiracy theories popular among certain ends of the political spectrum but not others.
Paradoxically honorable part of my bookshelf by the son of Peter
Committed identity: 55a76a50ba8a238069e68836120151b2078697a6ac5754364eff2b46d46810c7a9d82a31a7eca39039c9eefefb716acd3f14e36375d3af6b72afb800215f19a1 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
