Changes

# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]

# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]

# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_terrorism&oldid=338611071|title=Islamic terrorism|work=Wikipedia|date=January 18, 2010|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the article "Christianity and violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_violence&oldid=526775071</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."''

# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_terrorism&oldid=338611071|title=Islamic terrorism|work=Wikipedia|date=January 18, 2010|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the article "Christianity and violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_violence&oldid=526775071</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."''

#  [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".

#  [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that slanders the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is vehemently against [[Christianity]]. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe insults toward any other religion as "humorous".

# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.

# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.

# Wikipedia has millions of obscure entries, but deletes or omits entries about [[conservatives]] and/or [[Christians]].  For example, conservative congressional candidate [[Ruth McClung]] has no entry at all on Wikipedia, despite being far more notable than many of its entries; likewise, broadcaster Al Gross's entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gross_%28broadcaster%29</ref> has been tagged for deletion despite having a notable and continuing career in broadcasting.

# Wikipedia has millions of obscure entries, but deletes or omits entries about [[conservatives]] and/or [[Christians]].  For example, conservative congressional candidate [[Ruth McClung]] has no entry at all on Wikipedia, despite being far more notable than many of its entries; likewise, broadcaster Al Gross's entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gross_%28broadcaster%29</ref> has been tagged for deletion even though he has a notable and continuing career in broadcasting.

# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."

# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."

# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref> but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).

# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref> but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).

# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]].<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>

# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]].<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>

# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and instead ignores the foreknowledge with a pathetically abbreviated section entitled "History and advocacy" under "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts</ref>

# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and instead ignores the foreknowledge with a pathetically abbreviated section entitled "History and advocacy" under "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts</ref>

# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].  

# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clear-cut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving by changing it from a day to thanks to God as the holiday is supposed to be and instead claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].  

#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>

#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>

#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular).  Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.

#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular).  Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.