"

 Are you so biased you don't even see what you are saying? Why would new users have to be educated? it should be assumed that the wiki is factual, and includes facts... How is that an agenda? Sure it might promote edit wars, but that does not make the edit any less true, or any less valid. People debate about just about anything...That doesn't mean that facts should be repressed because of it. I fail to see how that critisism would be ""justified"" any more than the critisism ""that Wikipedia is hostile toward fact and promotes religion, and ""for example, refuses to label Jesus and Original sin as Mythology""."" The other side of the coin is what we face right now. You have yet to give one good reason why the label is not appropriate, only red herrings. So people might argue over it. Big deal. If I get 2 guys to argue over the gender of a duck, does the duck cease to have a gender? So what people might be offended by it. I am sure that some Islamics might be offended by an article on jesus, does that mean it should be removed? better yet, some muslims are offended by the site of female's skin, does that mean we should peel the skin off of all females to avoid offending them?  "