That's from the BBC History page:
   [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/religious/holywar.shtml
   THEY'VE been the main spreaders of this concept for decades.
   It's what I learned in school. Also influenced by the same BBC
   history that once had categories of "Dark" and "Middle" ages,
   long after historians had abandoned the terms. Even now, they
   cling slightly onto antiquated ideas. Granted, BBC does do a
   great job with many things but a balanced view of history they
   do not. Comparing and contrasting with other versions of history
   and you start to see their biases very quickly. You can accept
   it if you wish. But what makes *this* encyclopedia of wars
   _DIFFERENT_ is its completeness. He's not weaving together a
   marvelous tale (which always ends up in the Glory of Britannia
   as the final result) - but rather an analysis of each war from
   various perspectives. It's an academic resource, not weaving
   together documentary fairy tales. I like the BBC - they tell
   good stories. And of course bias-free history is currently
   impossible. But, my thing is, Brett - watch the narrative. If
   you're hearing a consistent perspective repeated frequently, try
   to find other ones. Find things that are more data than story.
   Not that it's a fix either because data can be problematic as
   well, especially in its interpretation. This could be an example
   of that. I don't know. I've done some analysis of BBC history's
   bias in the past - but I haven't done so for the Infoplease /
   Facts on File people. Maybe they have an agenda too - either
   overt, covert, maybe even unaware of it themselves, or maybe
   they have none. I don't know yet. I don't know if the text
   looked for pure holy wars or partial - it's just, to me, the old
   story, "Most wars are caused by religion" seems to have a much
   weaker case than it once did. I'm hoping it's due to better
   scholarship. I don't know. I'll scrutinize the infoplease/facts
   on file people and see if there's some obvious bias there as
   well. It's only fair. == Ok. I discovered: Facts on File is a
   part of Infoplease which is supported by Pearson, the textbook
   maker for US schools. They're not without controversy - charges
   over their portrayals of history are always being fought about:
   most recently, some groups claim they have a pro-islamic bias,
   others claim they have a pro-Christian bias, back and forth it
   goes and such is expected. So, it seems the publishers attempt
   at objectivity but aren't always successful. Since they're in
   the business of facts, they do try, although I have some
   criticisms about Pearson myself and the very dry way they tend
   to teach history and other subjects. But perhaps dry is best.
   "just the facts". BBC is far more colorful and interesting. So,
   I went to the main author, Axelrod. He's definitely a historian
   and well respected and writes... a.. LOT...
   [2]http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Axelrod/e/B001IQULA4 I'm looking
   for complaints of bias in his work: People _will_ complain and
   do complain when they see issues (whether or not their
   complaints are valid is another story) - but it's something to
   work with. I'll see what I can find. == I saw some complaints in
   one of his books that he appears to have an anti-Bush bias.
   Another complained that he used BCE instead of BC. Otherwise, I
   could find few complaints of bias in his work. This isn't
   authoritative, but we're in the subtle-areas dept. Now, if
   you're going to write information that gets put into textbooks
   from kindergarten through high school in the USA, separation of
   church + state is a pretty big thing to keep in mind and be
   aware of. Histories written for Great Britain do _not_ have to
   worry about a separation of church + state (obviously) and so
   are more free to speculate in less than crystal clear areas. So,
   depictions of the same events will appear to be quite different.
   Who is doing it right? I don't know. But the differences are
   intriguing. ==

References

   Visible links
   1. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fethics%2Fwar%2Freligious%2Fholywar.shtml&h=KAQF5DgGj
   2. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAlan-Axelrod%2Fe%2FB001IQULA4&h=NAQHNmonc