![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
"Penuel" and "pineal" are of course unrelated linguistically; not that that ever stopped religious apologists. But how popular is this mistake? And has anyone notable argued against it?
198.228.228.146 ( talk) 13:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Collin237
It's obvious
WP:UNDUE rot of the kind forwarded under the auspices of "
Ivan van Sertima (editor)", apparently under the assumption that nobody can stop you from publishing absolute drivel as long as you keep playing the race card.
[1]
Wikipedia has seen its fair share of this madness.
--
dab
(đł)
10:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
"Penuel" and "pineal" are of course unrelated linguistically; not that that ever stopped religious apologists. But how popular is this mistake? And has anyone notable argued against it?
198.228.228.146 ( talk) 13:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Collin237
It's obvious
WP:UNDUE rot of the kind forwarded under the auspices of "
Ivan van Sertima (editor)", apparently under the assumption that nobody can stop you from publishing absolute drivel as long as you keep playing the race card.
[1]
Wikipedia has seen its fair share of this madness.
--
dab
(đł)
10:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)