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

#41  Postby Fallible » Mar 14, 2020 8:25 am

:yawn:
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

#42  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 14, 2020 11:13 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 I do not read the articles i link too.

FIFY, stop projecting. :naughty:
Lets take a look shall we.

<snip>Another irrelevant wall of wiki copy-pasta<snip>

This does not demonstrate any direct link between the Viking Norsemen and the Ahrensburg or Hamburg cultures Netets. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
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

:picard:

Nevets wrote:
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.

Nope. Stop making shit up Nevets. :naughty:
The wiki article claims nothing of the sort, that is all your own irrational jumping to conclusions.

Nevets wrote:
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.

Still bullshit, no matter how many times you mindlessly regurgitate it. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
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.

Again, you're not engaging in any debates.
Again, the articles you quote do not support your asinine claims. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
Oh, and btw. I did not say they have to be tough because they come from the Hamburg culture.

Stop lying. You quoted the wiki page about the Hamburg culture in direct response to my question of why you assert the Norsemen had it hard(er than other barbarians).

Nevets wrote:
I said they had to be tough, because they had to migrate south, during the ice-age, or they would die.

Which is not the case with the Hamburg culture, so that's yet more rectally extracted fantasy.


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

You evidently don't and thus are in no position to act condescending and superior. Especially since your other two threads show you don't have the slightest clue about Prehistoric, Classical or Medieval history.

Nevets wrote:
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.

Only in your delusional fantasies.
Meanwhile here in reality, all you've proved is that your position is one of dishonesty, ignorance and overconfidence. :naughty:
"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

#43  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 14, 2020 11:34 am

Nevets wrote:
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.

Silly non-sequitur #6624672. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:

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.

Another obvious example of Nevets trying to avoid he made a mistake, by shifting the goal posts. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
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.

That doesn't make it reasonable, much less correct to claim Mehmet did.

Nevets wrote:
You care about different things from me.

Care to rephrase that into legible English?

Nevets wrote:
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.

You're not fooling anyone Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
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.

No, just correct you when you keep counter-factually asserting that Aethelstane or William was.

Nevets wrote:
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.

Why am I not surprised... :picard:


Nevets wrote:
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 I think they are referring too.

FIFY. Stop projecting Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
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)


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.

No, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't care about the facts or presenting yourself as a dishonest ignoramus. :roll:



Nevets wrote: Maybe you care about dwelling on whether Clovis I relationship with the Pope should be classed as Loyalty, or simply alliance, but i dont.

Blatant lie.

Nevets wrote: 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.

False. The Holy Roman Empire was in Germany, not the Papal State.

Nevets wrote:
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,

Get over yourself. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
Aethelstan was 400 years before the Norman conquest. You then removed it and changed it to 100 years.

False, he noticed he made a mistake, pointed it out himself and corrected it.

Nevets wrote: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.

1. Because ST care about the facts, just like most of us. Now you might be content with 'whatever I make up' fictional history, but there's no reason for members of this forum to accommodate you in that.
2. It's been repeatedly explained to you that England had been Catholic for centuries, when William I invaded. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
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 same time 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 I attribute words to me others that i they did not say.

FIFY. Stop projecting Nevets. :naughty:


Nevets wrote:
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.

Blatant lie. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
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.

Except it's not as in either case you're simply wrong.

Nevets wrote: 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....

Nonsense. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
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 I had already been established blindly asserting earlier that there was no anglo saxon kings of England.

FIFY. Stop lying Nevets.

Nevets wrote: 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.

No, the reason for not repeating that is that it doesn't invalidate what ST says, nor supports your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England. King of the English is in no way mutually exclusive with King of England. Quite the opposite in fact.

Nevets wrote:
I just assume you know that this has already been established.

It does not mean what you claim it means though. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
And when modern day historians refer to England of before 1066, they refer to England as England, even though it was actually "Engla Londe".

:picard:

Nevets wrote:I tried to make you aware of this about ten times, but you seemed unable to grasp the concept.

Because it's silly nonsense. :crazy:


Nevets wrote:
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

They were both as neither claim excludes or negates the other. :naughty:

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

Says the person who consistently displays arrogant examples of Dunning-Kruger. :crazy:

Nevets wrote:
You I will reply, telling me you what my your claim is, and get it hidiously wrong.

FIFY. Stop projecting Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
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.

Physician heal thyself. :roll:
"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

#44  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 12:57 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:That doesn't make it reasonable, much less correct to claim Mehmet did.


You are right.
I made a mistake.
I should have said Mehmed conquered Turkey.
Invaded was the wrong word.
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

#45  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 15, 2020 3:19 am

I should have said Mehmed conquered Turkey.


Dumb.
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: 28842
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest