• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

So in other words, you have no real response to my point that the hobbyist, Breitbart geneologist assumed facts not in evidence, and of course when he assumed them, he assumed them in the light least favorable to Warren, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed he was stating a best-case scenario for her? That's what I thought.

Uh, no, I had responses; you're apparently just waving your hand at them and saying I don't. So be it, I guess; par for your course.


I agree that it would be good to see the marriage document that the certified geneologist relied on. It would also be good to see the census documents that the hobbyist geneologist relied on.

Because, FYI, the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household. WTF?! :lol:

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1830a-01.pdf

Funny how these documents break things down by sex and race, then. Did you even read them?


Now you might still surmise SOMETHING from that sort of data, if you made a bunch of unfounded assumptions, but WTF?! Oklahoma wasn't even a STATE until 1907, so it wasn't included in the census! :2rofll:

Yeah, champ. The census forms mentioned were from Tennessee, not Oklahoma.


Well, maybe she was living in Tennessee as the hobbyist claims? Problem is, it appears that in the early census, members of assimilated indian tribes were listed as WHITE.

Now, hold on -- just a few sentences above, you said they didn't ask for race on those census forms.

You have no idea what you're posting from sentence to sentence.



Where did I get that piece of info.? From the link in the hobbyist's own article. :lol:

Could Elizabeth Warren Be a Minority? | America's North Shore Journal

This is what you're relying on?

The census records are only a valid proof if the census taker had the option to put Indian down for race. One of the comments states that assimilated Indians were listed as white at the time.

"Comments" of what? Like, internet poster comments? Oh, hey, THERE'S an unimpeachable source. Hey, I'm going to use DP posts as evidence from now on; you're estopped from objecting.

For some reason, whatever he linked to originally is inaccessible at the link currently (it won't scroll down); what you're referring to was posted days after his article.

I notice, too, that you ignored the links which show the purported claim by the son might not even exist, because no one can seem to find it.
 
Uh, no, I had responses; you're apparently just waving your hand at them and saying I don't. So be it, I guess; par for your course.




Funny how these documents break things down by sex and race, then. Did you even read them?




Yeah, champ. The census forms mentioned were from Tennessee, not Oklahoma.




Now, hold on -- just a few sentences above, you said they didn't ask for race on those census forms.

You have no idea what you're posting from sentence to sentence.





This is what you're relying on?



"Comments" of what? Like, internet poster comments? Oh, hey, THERE'S an unimpeachable source. Hey, I'm going to use DP posts as evidence from now on; you're estopped from objecting.

For some reason, whatever he linked to originally is inaccessible at the link currently (it won't scroll down); what you're referring to was posted days after his article.

I notice, too, that you ignored the links which show the purported claim by the son might not even exist, because no one can seem to find it.

Slow the motor mouth for a minute and do some actual research of your own. Stop relying on a hack hobbyist writing on a partisan website.

The early censes only asked the name of the head of the household. No one else in the household was listed by name. Other information was just asked in broad categories, e.g.:

Enumerators of the 1830 census were asked to include the following categories in the census: name of head of household; number of free white males and females in age categories: 0 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 15, 15 to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50, 50 to 60, 60 to 70, 70 to 80, 80 to 90, 90 to 100, over 100; the name of a slave owner and the number of slaves owned by that person; the number of male and female slaves and free "colored" persons by age categories; the number of foreigners (not naturalized) in a household; the number of deaf, dumb, and blind persons within a household; and town or district, and county of residence.

1830 Census :: 1830 U.S. Federal Census :: 1830 Free Census Resources

So please tell me how you get from there to concluding that a particular woman living in the house was white. Take your time....
 
Slow the motor mouth for a minute and do some actual research of your own. Stop relying on a hack hobbyist writing on a partisan website.

"Hack hobbyist" = "says things AdamT doesn't want to be true." :lamo


The early censes only asked the name of the head of the household. No one else in the household was listed by name. Other information was just asked in broad categories, e.g.:

This is different from what you said. You said they didn't ask for race at all. Looks like your own "motor mouth" got the better of you.


So please tell me how you get from there to concluding that a particular woman living in the house was white. Take your time....

1) If they list everyone in the household as white, what other conclusion can you draw?

2) According to the article, she was mentioned by name, not the name of her husband.

2) Even if you're right, this covers the 1830 census, but not the 1840 census or the 1860 census. He referenced all three.
 
This is different from what you said. You said they didn't ask for race at all. Looks like your own "motor mouth" got the better of you.

No, you are lying. What I said was, "the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household."

At least try to be less obvious when you lie. :roll:

1) If they list everyone in the household as white, what other conclusion can you draw?

Good question! What do you do when the only choices given are "white, black, or mulatto"? American Indians in the Federal Decennial Census, 1790-1930

According to the hobbyist's source, the assimilated Indians were generally listed as WHITE. But I guess that was open to some interpretation, as the link above suggests that on rare occasion people wrote in Indian.

2) According to the article, she was mentioned by name, not the name of her husband.

Then -- surprise surprise -- the author of the article was lying. It wasn't until 1870 that every person in the household was listed by name. And -- surprise surprise -- the author only mentions census results up to 1860!

2) Even if you're right, this covers the 1830 census, but not the 1840 census or the 1860 census. He referenced all three.

Wrong again, Sherlock. There were no relevant changes between the three censuses. Now, if he had listed the 1870 census that would be a completely different matter....

Again -- probably not a great idea to take the word of a hobbyist geneologist writing on a partisan, right-wing website over the word of a well-respected, PROFESSIONAL geneologist. Do your own research.
 
Last edited:
No, you are lying. What I said was, "the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household."

At least try to be less obvious when you lie. :roll:

Oh, YOU have the temerity to say something so rich? YOU? AdamT, perhaps the biggest liar about what people say on all of DP?

If you meant by name, then perhaps you were right. But if you meant at all, which is how I took it, then you're wrong, and your own documents show it.


Good question! What do you do when the only choices given are "white, black, or mulatto"? American Indians in the Federal Decennial Census, 1790-1930

According to the hobbyist's source, the assimilated Indians were generally listed as WHITE. But I guess that was open to some interpretation, as the link above suggests that on rare occasion people wrote in Indian.

Uh, no, according to some "comment."


Then -- surprise surprise -- the author of the article was lying. It wasn't until 1870 that every person in the household was listed by name. And -- surprise surprise -- the author only mentions census results up to 1860!

This assumes that she wasn't the head of the household for any of those years.


Wrong again, Sherlock. There were no relevant changes between the three censuses. Now, if he had listed the 1870 census that would be a completely different matter....

Again -- probably not a great idea to take the word of a hobbyist geneologist writing on a partisan, right-wing website over the word of a licenses, well-respected geneologist. Do your own research.

Your "well-respected genealogist" can't produce the document which supposedly establishes her as a Cherokee. The hobbyist, however, produced a marriage license and marriage certificate which do no such thing, as well as a statement from someone who works in the office in question that at the time, there were no "applications," only the licenses and certificates.

Turns out that the genealogist was relying not on an actual document, but a "family newsletter" from 2006:

The Native American link extends to Warren's great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, who is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. NEHGS gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter, and says the original application cannot be located.

Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Here's the newsletter, linked to from Mother Jones (you know, that right-wing hit rag).

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kgissy/borakernl/34.pdf

In it, there's a claim that Smith was "full-blooded Cherokee," but that's been shown not to be true in any case. This is what the respected genealogist was relying on.

NEHGS, by the way, has apparently washed its hands of the issue.

On May 10, a spokesman from the New England Historic Genealogical Society told the Boston Herald that neither the organization nor any of its employees would make further statements on the question of Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. This statement came despite a decades-long tradition of providing genealogical reports on national and Massachusetts political figures.
Email messages and phone calls to Mr. Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society were not returned.


On Friday, May 11, Thomas Champoux of the New England Historic Genealogical Society responded by email to my request for an interview as follows:
Michael, NEHGS is not conducting research on Elizabeth Warren nor are we commenting beyond what has already been covered by the media. Thank you.
Tom Champoux
NEHGS


Now, all this having been said, I don't think Warren was necessarily lying about anything; she may well have believed the family story.
 
Oh, YOU have the temerity to say something so rich? YOU? AdamT, perhaps the biggest liar about what people say on all of DP?

If you meant by name, then perhaps you were right. But if you meant at all, which is how I took it, then you're wrong, and your own documents show it.

What I meant was obvious and you pretending that half of the sentence I wrote wasn't there just makes you seem like a bigger liar than you already did. :lol:


Uh, no, according to some "comment."

Uh, those "comments" were the source that your hobbyist cited in his article.


This assumes that she wasn't the head of the household for any of those years.

Yes, you and the hobbyist engage in a lot of assumptions.

Your "well-respected genealogist" can't produce the document which supposedly establishes her as a Cherokee.

He can't? Or do you mean that the amateurs trying to attack Warren haven't found the document?

The hobbyist, however, produced a marriage license and marriage certificate which do no such thing, as well as a statement from someone who works in the office in question that at the time, there were no "applications," only the licenses and certificates.

AFAIK it was never claimed that the license or certificate contained the relevant information. Did the geneologist make up the application? I guess it's possible but I don't see why he would.

Turns out that the genealogist was relying not on an actual document, but a "family newsletter" from 2006:

Uh, so the article claims, but I see absolutely no evidence that it came from a newsletter. Another wild-ass assumption.

Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Here's the newsletter, linked to from Mother Jones (you know, that right-wing hit rag).

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kgissy/borakernl/34.pdf

And the connection between the newsletter and the geneologists conclusion is where? Oh yeah -- another assumption. There is no factual basis to conclude that the geneologist relied on the newsletter. Has it occurred to you that someone in the family may have the application, even if it isn't in the official records? Do you think that Warren hopped into a time machine and falsified a 2006 family newsletter in anticipation of a future Senate campaign?

In it, there's a claim that Smith was "full-blooded Cherokee," but that's been shown not to be true in any case.

No, it hasn't been shown to be the case, despite your continued reliance on thoroughly discredited "facts".

This is what the respected genealogist was relying on.

Again, so you claim without an iota of evidence.

Now, all this having been said, I don't think Warren was necessarily lying about anything; she may well have believed the family story.

Of course she did, and that is the point. But thanks for comical support of the swiftboaters. :lol:

As I think I mentioned above, I think she didn't have any real evidence of her Indian heritage, but she was told of it from the time she was a child and assumed it was true. Personally I was told that I'm Jewish and I've always assumed it was true. Maybe I should hire a geneologist to check it out.
 
Last edited:
What I meant was obvious and you pretending that half of the sentence I wrote wasn't there just makes you seem like a bigger liar than you already did. :lol:

Well, I guess being such a liar yourself, you simply assume everyone else does. The cool thing about embracing the truth and good faith is that it makes you less cynical; you should give it a shot.



Uh, those "comments" were the source that your hobbyist cited in his article.

Show that he "cited" the "comments."



Yes, you and the hobbyist engage in a lot of assumptions.

You're the one making the assumption she wasn't the head of household; it stands to reason that if she's listed by name in the census, as he says she is (her married name), then according to your own sources on how the census was conducted, she must have been the head of household, because that's the only "name" which is listed.



He can't? Or do you mean that the amateurs trying to attack Warren haven't found the document?

Uh, no, the follow-up stories say NEHGS says they can't locate the document. You really should read.



Uh, so the article claims, but I see absolutely no evidence that it came from a newsletter. Another wild-ass assumption.

Except NEHGS saying it did? If you don't see it, you're blind.

Here's the link again:

Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Here's the quote again:

The New England Historic Genealogical Society provided CNN with initial research showing several members of Warren's maternal family claiming Cherokee heritage. The Native American link extends to Warren's great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, who is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. NEHGS gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter, and says the original application cannot be located.


And the connection betweent the newsletter and the geneologists conclusion is where? Oh yeah -- another assumption.

I backed it up within my post, as shown above. You apparently didn't read it very carefully.


No, it hasn't been shown to be the case, despite your continued reliance on thoroughly discredited "facts".

Which "facts" do you mean specifically, and how and where have they been "discredited"?

:lamo


Again, so you claim without an iota of evidence.

And you repeat, although I gave you the evidence the post. And again in this one.

This is pretty freakin' sad, Adam. You really should just give it up.
 
Why does this elicit waves of laughter from you?

Because it makes her 1/32 War Crinimal/Slaughterer of Native Americans. :lamo

You know why this is absolutely hilarious but are playing dumb. She chose to check that box. To tout her "minority" status.
 
Well, I guess being such a liar yourself, you simply assume everyone else does. The cool thing about embracing the truth and good faith is that it makes you less cynical; you should give it a shot.

The cool thing about having your quotes right there ^^^^^ for everyone to see is that it's painfully obvious you were lying and can't even admit it when it could not be any clearer. Man up and admit it -- it won't kill you.

Show that he "cited" the "comments."

It was your link. Click on it. :lol:

You're the one making the assumption she wasn't the head of household.

Given that she was married, and that we're talking about the 19th century, the reasonable assumption is that her husband was the head of the household. But even if that wasn't the case, the questions asked in the census don't provide the purported answers that are claimed.

Uh, no, the follow-up stories say NEHGS says they can't locate the document. You really should read.

Fair enough -- I missed that.

So ... any theory as to why someone in the Warren family lied about it in 2006 in a family newsletter?

Which "facts" do you mean specifically, and how and where have they been "discredited"?

I mean the claimed results from early census questions that couldn't possibly provide the information that the author claims he gleaned from them.

This is pretty freakin' sad, Adam.

It's beyond sad. It's a pathetic attempt to swiftboat a dedicated public servant who's infinitely brighter than that dimwit Scott Brown.
 
Last edited:
The cool thing about having your quotes right there ^^^^^ for everyone to see is that it's painfully obvious you were lying and can't even admit it when it could not be any clearer. Man up and admit it -- it won't kill you.

Believe me, I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone of goodwill reading what I posted and drawing conclusions. You're the one who should worry.


It was your link. Click on it. :lol:

Oh? Where did he say anything about "comments"?


Given that she was married, and that we're talking about the 19th century, the reasonable assumption is that her husband was the head of the household.

It might be, except that she was named. Your assumption was that she wasn't.


But even if that wasn't the case, the questions asked in the census don't provide the purported answers that are claimed.

Which "answers" are those? You've gone out into the weeds; do you even remember what the "claim" was?


Fair enough -- I missed that.

Was that so hard?


So ... any theory as to why someone in the Warren family lied about it in 2006 in a family newsletter?

Find someone who claimed they lied. Lots of people believe things about their families which aren't true. Doesn't have to go back that many generations, either.


I mean the claimed results from early census questions that couldn't possibly provide the information that the author claims he gleaned from them.

Again, which "claims" are these? His claims were that she was mentioned by name and that she was listed as "white." According to all of your info on census-taking of the day, yes, they could "possibly" have done so.


It's beyond sad. It's a pathetic attempt to swiftboat a dedicated public servant who's infinitely brighter than that dimwit Scott Brown.

Yeah. They should be digging up 46 year-old stories about what Romney did as a kid instead, right?
 
so, Warren is at least 1/32 Indian
the same percentage of Indian blood as the current Chief of the Western Band of the Cherokee Nation
she did not claim minority status based on her Indian heritage
thus, she realized no benefit due to her Indian heritage

now, what is it that the reich wingers are whining about?
 

I'm not disputing Mr. Baker's bloodlines although I don't know anyone that considers Wikipedia dependable. It's Warren's claim that is proving to be false.

Now, decades after Ms. Warren first began making these unsubstantiated claims about her Native American heritage, Chris Child, a researcher at the New England Genealogical Office, has offered one bit of evidence that some claim support Ms. Warren's contention that she has Cherokee heritage. But it's not much.

Mr. Child found that Ms. Warren’s great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, had a brother, William Crawford. In 1894, when William Crawford was about 57 years old, he submitted a marriage application to the officials of Logan County, in what was then Oklahoma Territory. In that application, William Crawford stated he wished to receive a license to marry Mary Long, and he further stated that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was a Cherokee.

Here's the problem with that evidence: Nowhere do the records of that time support William Crawford's claim.

We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret "Peggy" Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There's no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father's father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas' birth in 1731.

O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as "Oma" or "Neoma"—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren's great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.

It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith's son that Ms. Warren's assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.

However, it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage.

Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian.

So why would Ms. Warren's great-great-grand-uncle make up such a thing? Perhaps he showed the same kind of tendency towards ancestral "embellishment" that she herself seems to exhibit, or perhaps there was some logistical or tactical benefit in the Oklahoma Territory of 1894 to him and his intended bride that encouraged him to make the claim. Or perhaps he believed it to be true, even though in all probability it was not. We will likely never know.
No Credible Evidence for Warren's Claim to Native American Ancestry
 
Believe me, I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone of goodwill reading what I posted and drawing conclusions. You're the one who should worry.

I worry that you have a bizarre inability to admit the most blatant error. You should be worried about it, too.


Oh? Where did he say anything about "comments"?

The link is to nothing BUT comments. :lol:


It might be, except that she was named. Your assumption was that she wasn't.

There is no indication that she was or was not named. You're lying again.


Which "answers" are those? You've gone out into the weeds; do you even remember what the "claim" was?

Concentrate. Try to follow the conversation. The censuses did not ask for the race of individuals in the household, but rather only asked about how many white, black, or mulattos were in the household over all. It did not ask if there were any Indians in the household. Accordingly, there is no way the author could determine from the censuses that the woman was listed as white.

Was that so hard?

Not at all -- you should try it some time.

Find someone who claimed they lied. Lots of people believe things about their families which aren't true. Doesn't have to go back that many generations, either.

Seems a rather specific thing to claim if there was no basis for it. A lot of people might say, "my great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee", but to pull out of thin air that her son listed her as Cherokee on his wedding application? Doubtful, IMO.

His claims were that she was mentioned by name and that she was listed as "white." According to all of your info on census-taking of the day, yes, they could "possibly" have done so.

Again, you are making **** up. He never claimed that she was mentioned by name. You only say that because you realize how weak your argument is if she wasn't listed by name. And of course that's stupid, because it makes no difference if she was listed by name or not. The census only asked for the number of people in the three groups by household.

Yeah. They should be digging up 46 year-old stories about what Romney did as a kid instead, right?

Certainly those stories would be more relevant than the race of a candidates great-great-great grandmother. :lol:
 
I'm not disputing Mr. Baker's bloodlines although I don't know anyone that considers Wikipedia dependable. It's Warren's claim that is proving to be false.

Now, decades after Ms. Warren first began making these unsubstantiated claims about her Native American heritage, Chris Child, a researcher at the New England Genealogical Office, has offered one bit of evidence that some claim support Ms. Warren's contention that she has Cherokee heritage. But it's not much.

Mr. Child found that Ms. Warren’s great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, had a brother, William Crawford. In 1894, when William Crawford was about 57 years old, he submitted a marriage application to the officials of Logan County, in what was then Oklahoma Territory. In that application, William Crawford stated he wished to receive a license to marry Mary Long, and he further stated that his mother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was a Cherokee.

Here's the problem with that evidence: Nowhere do the records of that time support William Crawford's claim.

We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret "Peggy" Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There's no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee, and her father's father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas' birth in 1731.

O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as "Oma" or "Neoma"—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren's great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.

It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith's son that Ms. Warren's assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.

However, it is more likely that O.C. Sarah Smith had no Cherokee heritage.

Census records that listed O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford (her married name) as a resident of Tennessee in 1830, 1840, and 1860 classify her as white, not Indian.

So why would Ms. Warren's great-great-grand-uncle make up such a thing? Perhaps he showed the same kind of tendency towards ancestral "embellishment" that she herself seems to exhibit, or perhaps there was some logistical or tactical benefit in the Oklahoma Territory of 1894 to him and his intended bride that encouraged him to make the claim. Or perhaps he believed it to be true, even though in all probability it was not. We will likely never know.
No Credible Evidence for Warren's Claim to Native American Ancestry

Wikipedia is widely regarded as a good source of information. The article you cite has been discussed ad nauseum above.
 
Wikipedia is widely regarded as a good source of information. The article you cite has been discussed ad nauseum above.
Your own "credible" source disagrees with you.

Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. From the site:
Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.

It's a starting point, period.
 
Your own "credible" source disagrees with you.

Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. From the site:


It's a starting point, period.

The article you cited says that ANY encyclopedia is just a starting point for ACADEMIC research. So yeah, I wouldn't cite it in a doctoral thesis, but it's generally a good source for interweb discussions. It's certainly more credible than Breitbart, insofar as it generally includes hyperlinked footnotes that you can check if you aren't too lazy.

More Wikpedia on Wikipedia:

The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1]

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature responded to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability have been raised.[by whom?][9] However, omissions sometimes remained an issue, at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I have a professor friend who was trying to get a Wikipedia entry about his university's astronomy lab. He was amazed at how much checking they do and how much paperwork you have to fill out to actually get an entry.
 
Last edited:
The article you cited says that ANY encyclopedia is just a starting point for ACADEMIC research. So yeah, I wouldn't cite it in a doctoral thesis, but it's generally a good source for interweb discussions. It's certainly more credible than Breitbart, insofar as it generally includes hyperlinked footnotes that you can check if you aren't too lazy.

More Wikpedia on Wikipedia:



I have a professor friend who was trying to get a Wikipedia entry about his university's astronomy lab. He was amazed at how much checking they do and how much paperwork you have to fill out to actually get an entry.
Ah. So academia, where theory is more important than results(fine, it's research) doesn't accept Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source, so that's the focal point you want to go with, fine. Reality, which deals with results requires a higher standard than academia, so if the source is tertiary to academia it is moreso to reality. So, which logical fallacy committed do you want me to address first? The "appeal to authority" or "attack the messenger" fallacy? You have committed both using your own source. Face it, you stepped into the "kill box" and lost.
 
Ah. So academia, where theory is more important than results(fine, it's research) doesn't accept Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source, so that's the focal point you want to go with, fine. Reality, which deals with results requires a higher standard than academia, so if the source is tertiary to academia it is moreso to reality. So, which logical fallacy committed do you want me to address first? The "appeal to authority" or "attack the messenger" fallacy? You have committed both using your own source. Face it, you stepped into the "kill box" and lost.

I think you should try to stick to reality, where Wikipedia is generally considered a pretty good source, and certainly better than any partisan blog, like Breitbart. And by all means you should avoid commenting on academia so as to avoid sounding silly.
 
I think you should try to stick to reality, where Wikipedia is generally considered a pretty good source, and certainly better than any partisan blog, like Breitbart. And by all means you should avoid commenting on academia so as to avoid sounding silly.
Translation: As long as my source says what I want it to it's a great source, until it says it's not a great source and destroys my argument entirely, then I will commit logical fallacies for and against it and other debators as well. Me want my way damnit.
 
Translation: As long as my source says what I want it to it's a great source, until it says it's not a great source and destroys my argument entirely, then I will commit logical fallacies for and against it and other debators as well. Me want my way damnit.

You should try Google Translate. It's a lot more accurate than the silly source you're using.
 
You should try Google Translate. It's a lot more accurate than the silly source you're using.
Nope, I think the translation is spot on. So, which logical fallacy do you want me to address first?
 
Nope, I think the translation is spot on. So, which logical fallacy do you want me to address first?

Just start wherever you like -- this should be a riot. :lol:
 
Just start wherever you like -- this should be a riot. :lol:
Fine. You committed an "appeal to authority" fallacy by bringing out a tertiary source, I'm going to assume because it was readily available but it becomes suspect because it conveniently states what you want to make your case. Your own source points out that it's a starting point......a tertiary source if you will and then you refuse to accept that and engaged in a double "attack the messenger" logical fallacy against those disputing your source (with itself) and the source itself by trying to wriggle out of the inconvenient fact that the initial source is in fact suspect and not acceptable as a primary source. I get it, you can't argue against the counter that your source is unacceptabe, that fact is blatantly obvious within your own source.
 
Fine. You committed an "appeal to authority" fallacy by bringing out a tertiary source....

Let's just deal with that idiocy on its own. First, you don't understant what "appeal to authority" means, notwithstanding the fact that I've explained it to you several times. You seem to think that any appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, which is just immeasurably stupid. In fact, it is perfectly legitimate argument to appeal to authority as long as the authority cited is in fact a legitimate authority for the purpose cited.

I would go on but you need to be more specific about WTF you are claiming. For example, WTF does "it" refer to in your second sentence? What is the "tertiary source" you claim that I cited? How specifically do you think I engaged in a "double 'attack the messenger'" fallacy? What messengers did I attack and why do you think it was a fallacy?

Stop spewing meaningless jargon to try to make yourself sound smart (it has the opposite effect) and say what you mean.
 
Back
Top Bottom