Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#21  Postby Fallible » Mar 13, 2020 10:12 pm

My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#22  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 13, 2020 10:15 pm

Well, copy machines existed then, but were not extant at my school. Hell, they were not even accredited until several years had past since I attended. I’m not sure what happened to my notes and papers from the latest Cretaceous. I think my mom may have done away with them in a fit of anger when she found out I was no longer a Christian. Most were trash, but my co-major papers in US history contained some seriously diligent effort. I just hope beyond hope that Nevets doesn’t go off on a troll fest about the Whiskey Rebellion. I wrote a term paper my instructor held up to the class as an example of “how it’s done” pertaining to that event. I’m not quite sure I could remain detached in such an event.

“primordial lava” :lol:

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#23  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 10:23 pm

Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.



Had exactly that with one really spiteful lecturer totally unlike any of the others I experienced there.

She seemed intent on finding ways to fail as many of her students as possible.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#24  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 13, 2020 10:27 pm

I had an English comp 101 prof that was like that. Failed a paper that I spent 2 days writing, and gave me an A for one I scribbled out in 10 minutes during lunch. The second paper was rubbish. Only half the class remained at the end of the semester.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#25  Postby Fallible » Mar 13, 2020 10:30 pm

Mine was a history lecturer. He inhabited an old building on top of the hill on campus, with other similarly sartorially challenged individuals in the History department. We called it the Kremlin.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#26  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 10:47 pm

Fallible wrote:Mine was a history lecturer. He inhabited an old building on top of the hill on campus, with other similarly sartorially challenged individuals in the History department. We called it the Kremlin.



In my first 1st year (I switched courses in no little part because of this) the course lecturer for Pre-Hellenistic Greek History was a right asshat. We had 2 lectures and 2 tutorials per week, and he scheduled them all for 9am. He told us the first day that it was intentional because too many students go out in the evening and they are here solely to study, so he wanted to make anyone who thought of going out pay for their choices. He had his tutorials in his private room that looked like something out of Hogwarts... massive high-backed armchairs around an open fireplace and always chose the most boring minutiae to witter on about in a monotonous tone for 2 hours. It was meant to be a tutorial class where, in all other courses, the students would discuss, raise questions etc., but in his it was another 4 hours a week to be lectured at about the comparative consistency of bricks in different city states. He very nearly made me hate history.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#27  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 11:00 pm

Sendraks wrote:Quoting wikipedia and forming rational opinion are two completely different things.

Your posts neatly demonstrate that no amount of wikipedia quoting is going to help you form rational opinions. Thinking critically and rationally is a skill, separate from just quoting evidence. If you can't think rationally or critically, then no amount of evidence you quote is necessarily going to help you form rational views, especially if you are unwilling to challenge your confirmation bias.



This is manifestly true with Nevets.

The mere existence of Wikipedia is not helping him in the slightest, which shows you need some degree of reading comprehension, an ability to analyze and process information, the usually learned young ability to tell one thing from a different thing... a suite of - admittedly simple but apparently outside the grasp of Nevets - skills wholly independent of Wikipedia.

Reminds me of JJ and his spiel about how Google democratized knowledge and made it so that experts weren't needed anymore even while making a litany of absurd errors from searching Google that no expert would ever make.

But this guy makes JJ look like Einstein in comparison.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#28  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 11:10 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:You still don't understand how the burden of proof works or that wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone at any time. Thats what makes it unreliable, not how much of it is accurate.

More importantly, as has been repeatedly to you:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.
1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.


In a court of law you would need to provide "proof" that 9.9 of everything that i post does not say, what i say it does. Rather than simply "claiming that".. Show me the research method you used, to calculate that 99% of my opinion is based upon misunderstanding what the wikipedia article says.

I've pointed this out to you with every single post you made, in at least two threads. :naughty:


Thomas Eshuis wrote: 2. You jump to conclusions that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles you quote.


Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples. And if you wish to drop my accuracy percentage down, you would also require providing more than one example, to show that this is a consistant pattern

Again I've done this repeatedly when it occured. :coffee:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 13, 2020 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#29  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 11:12 pm




Nevets wrote:Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples.



Spearthrower wrote:But hey, in for a penny eh?

Let's just show some random ones:

The problem for you is how easy this is. I am going to just click on a random page number of your posts, and I can almost guarantee I'll find a perfect example.

Nevets @ William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Nevets wrote:
The Norman invasion really only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings, When William the Conqueror became First Norman King of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


Your argument is that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the Battle of Hastings, and then you cite a source that tells us who William the Conqueror was but doesn't show that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings.


Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

Nevets wrote:
I never ever said Saladin invaded Turkey.

Mehmed the conqueror did, when he collapsed what was left of the Roman empire, and declared himself first Roman Emperor.

Mehmed II (Ottoman Turkish: محمد ثانى‎, romanized: Meḥmed-i sānī; Modern Turkish: II. Mehmet Turkish pronunciation: [ˈikindʒi mehmet]; 30 March 1432 – 3 May 1481), commonly known as Mehmed the Conqueror (Turkish: Fatih Sultan Mehmet), was an Ottoman Sultan who ruled from August 1444 to September 1446, and then later from February 1451 to May 1481. In Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi after the Hungarian incursions into his country broke the conditions of the truce Peace of Szeged. When Mehmed II ascended the throne again in 1451 he strengthened the Ottoman navy and made preparations to attack Constantinople.

At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire. After the conquest Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire. The claim was only recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror


Your claim is that Mehmet invaded Turkey; your source says nothing at all about Mehmet invading Turkey. Obviously, we can read past the anachronism there to the Turkish beyliks, but the point is that Mehmet was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire which even then incorporated most of modern Turkey - he was "Turkey" so why would he be invading it?


Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

This one was hilariously confused.

First you'd mistaken Mehmet for Saladin, then you claimed as above that Mehmet invaded Turkey, then when I pointed out that Mehmet didn't invade Turkey being Turkish himself, you responded with this:


Nevets wrote:
Nothing to do with it? What, do you think Muhammad just woke up one day in Medina, raided a caravan and decided to head straight for Turkey? No, the Holy lands came first

Saladin (/ˈsælədɪn/; 1137 – 4 March 1193), was the first sultan of Egypt and Syria[4] and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty. A Sunni Muslim of Kurdish ethnicity,[5][6][7] Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. At the height of his power, his sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, the Hejaz, Yemen and other parts of North Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin


So even though we were talking about Mehmet and you were supposedly explaining to me why it's relevant, you launch off into talking about what Mohammed did (800 years prior to Mehmet in a different part of the Middle East and from an entirely different ethnicity), then you provide a citation to Saladin... :lol: ... sorry, it's still amusing... Saladin being 500 years after Mohammed, and 250 years prior to Mehmet, so what on Earth is the citation meant to have any relevance to?


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736263

Nevets wrote:
What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

was King of Wessex from 871 to c.  886 and King of the Anglo-Saxons from c.  886 to 899. He was the youngest son of King Æthelwulf of Wessex. His father died when he was young and three of Alfred's brothers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great


Your argument is that Alfred the Great was the first Anglo-Saxon King to lay claim to being King of England. You then cite your Wikipedia one-liner which contains absolutely nothing whatsoever about Alfred the Great claiming to be King of England - all that's there is a basic one line entry saying 'Alfred the Great is this dude' - and if anything, it says that Alfred was "King of Wessex" and "King of the Anglo-Saxons", so it offers no support at all.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736274

Nevets wrote:
and we have "already" covered on a different thread, how the Carolingians were among the first barbarians to pledge loyalty to the Papal, through Clovis I

Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)


Your claim is that Clovis I pledged loyalty to the Pope (actually, you misused the term "Papal" again), whereas the source you offered to support that claim says that he allied the Pope. Pledging loyalty would make him subordinate to the Pope, whereas an alliance is not one of subordination.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736139

Nevets wrote:The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan


Your claims is that the Norman Conquest had to remove 'incubants' - presumably you mean 'incumbent' pagan Vikings - whereas you offer a source talking about Aethelstan defeating the last remaining Viking Kingdom which occurred in 927, which is 139 years prior to the Norman Invasion.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2736161

Nevets wrote:Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson


You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England, and that specifically includes Harold Godwinson... and yet your Wikipedia citation quite specifically says that Harold Godwinson was King of England.


The same exact point reiterated but with an amusing twist:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2736177

Nevets wrote:
Even though the link below i show you, does say "anglo-saxon king of England", i have already shown you, that when you look deeper, you find that there was never an anglo-saxon known as anything else other than King of the English

Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson


Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?


Honestly, I could go on and on - every page of your threads contains multiple examples of you doing this.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#30  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 13, 2020 11:26 pm

Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.

Or worse the books were not/no longer available for purchase so your entire course group had to share singular copies in the university library....
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#31  Postby laklak » Mar 13, 2020 11:43 pm

My most memorable professor was this 80 something geography prof. Can't remember his last name because he insisted we call him by his first, Romeo. I took some required 101 thing from him because it started at 11:00 for two hours twice a week. He'd start talking about something, anything, and just go down this rathole of arcane shit. It was brilliant, the best course I can remember. I learned all sorts of things. In my depressingly long university career there were lot of assholes but I've pretty much forgotten about them.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#32  Postby Nevets » Mar 14, 2020 4:17 am

Hermit wrote:

One recent glaring example is your claim that the Norse had to be tough travellers because they come from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC. Indeed, the Wikipedia provides references to the existence of the Norse, and it provides links to the Hamburg culture. What it does not provide, neither directly nor indirectly, is a link between the two, or how a connection between two types of societies that are 15,000 years apart could even be meaningful. This is the sort of stuff that springs out of your imagination, not the Wikipedia. And you keep doing this sort of thing again and again.


Sorry, but this is because you do not read the articles i link too.
Lets take a look shall we.

ARTICLE NORWAY PREHISTORY
The first inhabitants were the Ahrensburg culture (11th to 10th millennia BC), which was a late Upper Paleolithic culture during the Younger Dryas, the last period of cold at the end of the Weichselian glaciation. The culture is named after the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (15.53 mi) north-east of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where wooden arrow shafts and clubs have been excavated.[49] The earliest traces of human occupation in Norway are found along the coast, where the huge ice shelf of the last ice age first melted between 11,000 and 8,000 BC. The oldest finds are stone tools dating from 9,500 to 6,000 BC, discovered in Finnmark (Komsa culture) in the north and Rogaland (Fosna culture) in the south-west. However, theories about two altogether different cultures (the Komsa culture north of the Arctic Circle being one and the Fosna culture from Trøndelag to Oslofjord being the other) were rendered obsolete in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Prehistory



Right, so, do you see the bit that says that the first inhabitants of Norway were the Ahrensburg culture? Do you see? Yes? No?
If yes, then what do we do now? Well, we "click" on Ahrensburg culture and read up on it

THE AHRENSBURG CULTURE
The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation resulting in deforestation and the formation of a tundra with bushy arctic white birch and rowan. The most important prey was the wild reindeer. The earliest definite finds of arrow and bow date to this culture, though these weapons might have been invented earlier. The Ahrensburgian was preceded by the Hamburg and Federmesser cultures and superseded by the Maglemosian and Swiderian cultures. Ahrensburgian finds were made in southern and western Scandinavia, the North German plain and western Poland. The Ahrensburgian area also included vast stretches of land now at the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, since during the Younger Dryas the coastline took a much more northern course than today.

The culture is named after a tunnel valley near the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (16 mi) northeast of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where Ahrensburg find layers were excavated in Meiendorf, Stellmoor and Borneck. While these as well as the majority of other find sites date to the Young Dryas, the Ahrensburgian find layer in Alt Duvenstedt has been dated to the very late Allerød, thus possibly representing an early stage of Ahrensburgian which might have corresponded to the Bromme culture in the north. Artefacts with tanged points are found associated with both the Bromme and the Ahrensburg cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture


Now all those cultures, including "The Hamburg Culture" are all written about on that article about the Ahrensburg culture, and they are all regarded as being of the same culture, during different time periods, and spreading quite far and wide.

The reason you think i am just connecting things that are not connected, is because, "for your benefit", i remove all the walls of text that are irrelevant, to make it easier for "you" to read, and i seperate the quotes, which appears to be giving you the impression i am dot connecting. I am not. It is all written quite clearly in "one" single article, with barely any full stops, and it all comes under Ahrensburg culture.

However, it is too much, that in order to debate what is already written in "one" wikipedia article, i have to alse teach you what to click on, and how to read it properly. You have to meet me half way at least, and actually read the articles i post, not just the small quotes i present to you.

Oh, and btw. I did not say they have to be tough because they come from the Hamburg culture.
I said they had to be tough, because they had to migrate south, during the ice-age, or they would die.

Do you even know what the Younger dryas was?
Sorry to be harsh.

But what has been proven here. Is that "you" had never even heard of the Hamburg Culture, nor the Ahrensburg culture, before i brought it up.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#33  Postby Hermit » Mar 14, 2020 5:36 am

Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.


:lol:

One of mine insisted we buy the fourth edition of Copi's Symbolic Logic. The only copy in Australia was the one the author had air-freighted to him. Someone at the Co-Op Bookshop informed me that the first batch of 400 copies was scheduled to reach our shores towards the end of the second trimester. The local branch had dabs on 60 of them.

We took turns borrowing copies of the third edition from the stack. There were eight of them and you could take them out for a fortnight at a time. The photocopying room was unusually well patronised.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4658
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#34  Postby Hermit » Mar 14, 2020 6:00 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:

One recent glaring example is your claim that the Norse had to be tough travellers because they come from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC. Indeed, the Wikipedia provides references to the existence of the Norse, and it provides links to the Hamburg culture. What it does not provide, neither directly nor indirectly, is a link between the two, or how a connection between two types of societies that are 15,000 years apart could even be meaningful. This is the sort of stuff that springs out of your imagination, not the Wikipedia. And you keep doing this sort of thing again and again.


Sorry, but this is because you do not read the articles i link too.
Lets take a look shall we.

[Snip]

No. Let's not waste time on yet another example of you doing precisely what I have criticised you for in the exact same post you quote an extract from. Here's a piece you left out: You see meanings in the bits you quote from it that simply are not there, and worse, the frequency with which you draw inferences and conclusions from those snippets that cannot be based on the snippets you do quote.

So, where in the Wikipedia articles you linked to - or anywhere else for that matter - does it explain "how a connection between two types of societies that are 15,000 years apart could even be meaningful"?
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4658
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#35  Postby Nevets » Mar 14, 2020 6:15 am

Spearthrower wrote:Your argument is that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the Battle of Hastings, and then you cite a source that tells us who William the Conqueror was but doesn't show that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings.


You do not need a source to tell you when the British Norman invasion happened.

Spearthrower wrote:I never ever said Saladin invaded Turkey.

Mehmed the conqueror did, when he collapsed what was left of the Roman empire, and declared himself first Roman Emperor.

Your claim is that Mehmet invaded Turkey; your source says nothing at all about Mehmet invading Turkey. Obviously, we can read past the anachronism there to the Turkish beyliks, but the point is that Mehmet was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire which even then incorporated most of modern Turkey - he was "Turkey" so why would he be invading it?


Wromg. I could not care the name of the person that initially invaded Turkey. The major point "and" claim, would be that Mehmed became the first Muslim to declare himself Roman emperor, after killing the current Roman emperor, and adopting his three children.
Could not give a hoot if he did or did not conquer Turkey. But some Islamist did.

Spearthrower wrote:This one was hilariously confused.

First you'd mistaken Mehmet for Saladin, then you claimed as above that Mehmet invaded Turkey, then when I pointed out that Mehmet didn't invade Turkey being Turkish himself, you responded with this:

So even though we were talking about Mehmet and you were supposedly explaining to me why it's relevant, you launch off into talking about what Mohammed did (800 years prior to Mehmet in a different part of the Middle East and from an entirely different ethnicity), then you provide a citation to Saladin... :lol: ... sorry, it's still amusing... Saladin being 500 years after Mohammed, and 250 years prior to Mehmet, so what on Earth is the citation meant to have any relevance to?


Thats because i dont know the name of the person that conquered Turkey.
You care about different things from me.
A roman emperor got murdered. His three children, the three heirs to the throne got adopted by the person that had his father killed, and turned them in to Muslims, aswell as changing their names. That is my point.
It is you that knows the name of the person that conquered Turkey. Whoopy doo for you.

Spearthrower wrote:What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

Your argument is that Alfred the Great was the first Anglo-Saxon King to lay claim to being King of England. You then cite your Wikipedia one-liner which contains absolutely nothing whatsoever about Alfred the Great claiming to be King of England - all that's there is a basic one line entry saying 'Alfred the Great is this dude' - and if anything, it says that Alfred was "King of Wessex" and "King of the Anglo-Saxons", so it offers no support at all.


Again. You dont need me to tell you whether or not Alfred the Great claimed to be King of England.
The fact that it is claimed he was, is not in dispute. Not by anyone with common sense, or with ability to watch History channel once in a while. What is there to argue? or prove? I might be mistakenly assuming you know those things already. And the quotes i provide might not quite be referring to, what you think they are referring too.
This list of kings and queens of the Kingdom of England begins with Alfred the Great, who initially ruled Wessex, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs


Spearthrower wrote:Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)

Spearthrower wrote:Your claim is that Clovis I pledged loyalty to the Pope (actually, you misused the term "Papal" again), whereas the source you offered to support that claim says that he allied the Pope. Pledging loyalty would make him subordinate to the Pope, whereas an alliance is not one of subordination.


I could not really care. Maybe you care about dwelling on whether Clovis I relationship with the Pope should be classed as Loyalty, or simply alliance, but i dont. I am more concerned with the fact that Barbarians are beginning to become Catholicised, just like Alfred the Great did, and a Holy Roman Empire is being built, consisting of the Papal states.

Spearthrower wrote:Your claims is that the Norman Conquest had to remove 'incubants' - presumably you mean 'incumbent' pagan Vikings - whereas you offer a source talking about Aethelstan defeating the last remaining Viking Kingdom which occurred in 927, which is 139 years prior to the Norman Invasion.


But according to your first post, which i let you off with, Aethelstan was 400 years before the Norman conquest. You then removed it and changed it to 100 years. And now its 139 years. I dont even know why you care so much about how many years it was, or what the name of the invasion was. I could not care. Catholics are Catholicising England. That is what i care about.

Spearthrower wrote:I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England, and that specifically includes Harold Godwinson... and yet your Wikipedia citation quite specifically says that Harold Godwinson was King of England


But you attribute words to me that i did not say. You said "You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England".
But.. I did not say that. Here is what i said "William the conqueror probably was the first King of England". Do you see the bit thaat says "probably was"...? That is really important. It is not the samething as saying "no one before William was".. it means "entirely" different things. But i am glad you are able to tell me...what my claims are...
Your claim is....

Spearthrower wrote:Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?


Honestly, I could go on and on - every page of your threads contains multiple examples of you doing this.


But it had already been established earlier that there was no anglo saxon kings of England. The anglo-saxon Kings were referred to as "Kings of the English". This has "already been established", so i have no reason to keep repeating it.

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great


I just assume you know that this has already been established. And when modern day historians refer to England of before 1066, they refer to England as England, even though it was actually "Engla Londe". I tried to make you aware of this about ten times, but you seemed unable to grasp the concept.

The earliest recorded use of the term, as "Engla londe", is in the late-ninth-century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#Toponymy


And also when modern day historians refer to Engla Londe anglo-saxon kings, they refer to them as Kings of England. Not what they really were, Anglo-saxon Kings of the English

But i am doubtful, that even now, you will grasp it.


You will reply, telling me what my claim is, and get it hidiously wrong.
And the problem is caused by me "assuming" you know certain things already, that dont need explaining.

But what i would advise you to do, is revisit the William the conqueror thread, and without rushing to make an impulsive reply, read the thread from start to finish, in order to "understand" how you completely lost the debate, and that "everything" you think i got wrong, had been explained and established already.

Good night.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 14, 2020 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#36  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 14, 2020 6:49 am

Nevets, your lying is boring - perhaps you can deceive yourself, but you're not deceiving me or anyone else here. You can barely even follow your own argument, let alone vanquish everyone else. Your posts are a travesty. You have as much ability to expound on history as my cat.

Tip: when you're wrong, learn to admit it... this is the only way you will grow in knowledge and it is how you will retain credibility from people who know what they're talking about.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#37  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 14, 2020 6:51 am

Nevets
Name: steven gall
Posts: 276
Country: United Kingdom

Nevets wrote:Good night.


Posted at 6:15 am in the UK.

:what:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#38  Postby Nevets » Mar 14, 2020 6:59 am

Spearthrower wrote:Nevets
Name: steven gall
Posts: 276
Country: United Kingdom

Nevets wrote:Good night.


Posted at 6:15 am in the UK.


Spearthrower wrote:
Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?


Nevets wrote

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#39  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 14, 2020 7:33 am

Yes, it contradicts you. There were a dozen Anglo-Saxon kings prior to the Norman line.

As you say: this is knowledge a child might be expected to have.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kings- ... in-1856932

1Athelstan was king of Wessex and the first king of all England.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28853
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reliability of Wikipedia in forming rational opinion

#40  Postby Nevets » Mar 14, 2020 8:22 am

Spearthrower wrote:

As you say: this is knowledge a child might be expected to have.


:o
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 14, 2020 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest