The dependence on wikipedia

Jan 2019
Given the diversity of opinions on certain events in history, it would be inadvisable to rely heavily on it as it only represents one side of events.
Jan 2019
I've found that Wikipedia admins are not helpful and tend to parade their status around. They're more concerned with not being undermined as opposed to developing an article.


Ad Honorem
May 2016
Yet another thread derailed by someone with a regional only perspective who insists everyone else from everywhere else on the planet is wrong.
I think the thread didn’t derail, since it was created with that intention. But I agree totally with the second part of your comment.

50%-50%? It seems more like 90 to 10 to me (I'll allow it).
He doesn't know anything about the early macedonians, but does know that they weren't recognized as greeks.
Your clearly show signs that you didn't read the book when you state: “He doesn't know anything about the early macedonians”.

I don't care if you're a greek or a grecophile.
Jun 2017
This is ad hominem. It also implies that the whole world should believe in certain falsehoods.
No it really isn't.

And I get that judging people by their location is wrong and it's why I normally don't levy accusations I strongly believe about how people's opinions are informed by their location, people deserve the benefit of the doubt. But this case is so blatant and obvious and it's a general topic, wikipedia. You're basically saying because a wiki article disagrees with your regional agenda that the site is garbage(that's paraphrasing but it's the pharaphrasing of multiple things over multiple pages you've said). The misplaced people who have been fed propaganda about wikipedia not being reliable(I was fed a very large diet of this in school and assume others received the same at least partially) are one thing, but you're basically saying the site is bad because it does not adhere to your region specific positions. The fact wiki doesn't bow to near regionally exclusive perspectives is a plus not a minus.