Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The discussions page sometimes contains more than the actual article, and provides an isight into the subject and the contributor and which opinion should be taken more seriously.
The discussions page sometimes contains more than the actual article, and provides an isight into the subject and the contributor and which opinion should be taken more seriously.
EDIT DON'T REVERT
I will never revert a page that has been edited in good faith. If someone has something to say, even if 99% of the populace disagree it probably is still relevant. This is where there is no consensus between wikepedians:
NPOV vs. POV : Actually Wikepedia's policy on Neutrality is rather contradictory to itself and can be read in two ways. 1) Avoid any opinions and include only published fact 2} Include all fact, and represent all opinions. Since there is no way to decide which facts are correct and which are mere opinions, the second one seems logical, and unlike other encyclopaedias this one has the added bonus of a discussions page where you can often see nationalistic, local or egoistic pride shine! And form an objective view of your own.
Editing, NOT reverting, is usually the bst way when a big addition has taken place. I bet you can find something worthy in every edit...look hard! Otherwise those trying to Be Bold...will eventually give in! What is the point in constant reverts, a revert war...only one opinion being promulgated! That is not objectivity, nor beneficial.
NATIONALISTIC PRIDE IN ARTICLES IS DAFT
No matter what the old wives tales say..you cannot change historical fact, even with revisionism, the French forces didn't win at Agincourt, Germany did win world war II, The British Empire didn't ultimitely become a galactic force and Andorra doesn't rule the world!!
You cannot dismiss someone becuase of their birthplace.
My name's Christopher.
I have a degree in history, specialising in Europeanpolitical and Royal from about 400 to 1500 and classical theological history. I have a real interest in pure politics and theology too. These are all pretty intermingled though.
My religious beliefs don't easily fit anywhere. I believe all the Gods are as important as eachother, but i am not polytheistic. I worship whichever god, from whichever pantheon, seems appropriate at the time. I also believe in the monotheistic religions, Viewing Yahweh, God and Allah as distinct entitities, but ultimitely superior to the other Gods, which they created. (everyone needs a helping hand, right?) For me The Jewishmessiahs, Jesus and Muhammad are equally as important, but only as teachers. I would consider myslef closer to a mix of Arianism than other christianities.
The discussions page sometimes contains more than the actual article, and provides an isight into the subject and the contributor and which opinion should be taken more seriously.
