“Hear, O Israel: The Lord Our God, the Lord Is One”—But Not According to Wikipedia

As a follow-up to a recent article in this series, we look at a post by Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger on the platform’s assault on traditional Christian beliefs in contravention of the Wikipedia foundational policy of holding to a neutral point of view (NPOV). In a March  20, 2025, post on X,  Sanger addresses Wikipedia’s misrepresentation of “Yahweh,” otherwise known as Jehovah, the Lord God, or God the Father, highlighting his surprise and disagreement with the article’s stating that Yahweh was one of a “pantheon” of gods of a “polytheistic” belief system, Sanger emphasized that this portrayal of the God of the Bible does not align with traditional views of Judaism and the Gospels. Further, Sanger points out, “Wikipedia is not quoting anyone,”… It is asserting this in its own voice.” 

The editor who goes by “JustTheFacts” made the change on February 13, 2025. 

There had been similar commentary lower in the article before that, says Sanger, but “JustTheFacts” moving it to a prominent part of the page gives additional weight to this controversial interpretation. 

• The article makes no mention of the fact that Christians take themselves to worship Yahweh, or that Jesus is said to be the Son of God—in other words, in Christian theology, the God of whom Jesus is said to be eternally generated is Yahweh. 
• In fact, the article does not mention the Incarnation, the Trinity—the doctrine of the eternal generation, a key element of the Christian belief in one God existing in three persons: Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit.

“According to the current version of the neutrality policy,” wrote Sanger in his X post, “articles should represent ‘fairly… all the significant views that reliable sources have published on a topic.’ We must conclude that, on the view of Wikipedia, the long, long history of theology about the nature (a God whom those theologians identify as Yahweh) does not count as a ‘reliable source.’ Or, possibly, such views are not ‘significant,’ because they have been displaced by modern liberal scholars who apparently all (?!) agree in their speculation. This rather neatly illustrates how Wikipedia handles the notion of neutrality today.”

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.