@SanDiegoKnight Taking this even further with the sick way they operate: why even encourage people to have children at all when it costs so much to raise them and we can just let other countries birth children then bring them over when they are 18 and say we're good people for doing it?
Here's Grok's objective opinion:
Neutrality: D+
This is the weakest area. The lead states in Wikipedia’s own voice:“Yahweh was an ancient Semitic deity… the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel-Samaria and Judah… Many scholars think that the Israelites probably engaged in polytheistic practices… Yahweh likely became conflated with El… taking his place as the head of the pantheon in the Israelite religion… As Yahwism eventually developed into Judaism and Samaritanism, and transitioned from polytheism to monotheism…”
This treats a modern scholarly reconstruction (supported by archaeology and critical reading of the biblical text as composite and evolving) as the definitional fact. Significant alternative views—the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding that Yahweh was always the one true God, with polytheistic practices as apostasy rather than original orthodoxy—are largely absent or relegated elsewhere. Talk-page discussions confirm editors frequently insist the article is “about ancient history,” not the living religious figure, and proposals to qualify the lead or move the page to “Yahweh (historical)” have not produced consensus. Under Wikipedia’s own NPOV policy (fair representation of all significant published views), the religious and traditional scholarly perspectives held by the overwhelming majority of sources over two millennia count as significant. Privileging one academic school’s reconstruction while sidelining the others produces a secular, history-of-religions framing that many readers (and critics including Larry Sanger) experience as non-neutral.