[allmendream]

Do you dispute the facts or do you want to talk about wiki? Until an encyclopedia goes online for free, wiki is the only acceptable source, a lot better than Conservapedia, which is an embarrassment.

I don't defend wiki’s politics or their practices or even their model; but I do know that both of these events took place in history, and I am fairly confident that wiki has the dates and spelling of names correct, while my memory is unreliable for such things.

A poster asked another poster if he could explain ... “Were those bans on personal reading of the Bible or on specific translations? Please document. Can you?”

I sought to enrich the debate by citing factual evidence relevant to the discussion, not get into a debate about the politics or reliability of wikipedia.

[allmendream]

“Only acceptable alternative available” not “only acceptable source”. Primary sources are always important, especially if the factual nature of the cite is in dispute, which I imagine this is not. It would take only a second to confirm either on your search engine of choice if you have problems with Wiki.