Changes

# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D.  The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise?  Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.

# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D.  The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise?  Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.

# In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.[http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm] Wikipedia currently writes, "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus]  Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention.  And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed?  It offers a article which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory"  and has the warning "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth]  The article in question has a long history of warning to its readers but Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to do anything about it.  In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its [[Jesus]] article a statement like " A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs.  What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?   

# In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.<ref>[http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm]</ref> Wikipedia currently writes, "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus]</ref> Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention.  And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed?  It offers a article which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory"  and has the warning "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth]</ref> The article in question has a long history of warning to its readers but Wikipedia doesn't seem to want to do anything about it.  In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its [[Jesus]] article a statement like "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs.  What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?   

# Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

# Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref>  But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref>  That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''.

# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref>  But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref>  That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''.