vaxx:

Your almighty Wikipedia is not reliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

tintingz:
Myths are stories widely known In cultures, they are usually tales about gods, supernaturals that has no evidence. History and myths are mix together that most people don't even know what's historical and myth. A tale may actually be true but with time it is distorted when re-telling, this is when it becomes myth.

Yes, history mostly deals with facts because they are investigated.

Ok

Lol

You are mixing things up, what that page is saying was Wikipedia don't have self research or original research therefore don't take them reliable when sources are not attached to it.

From the same link you presented it said,

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Here is another one

Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Kindly read carefully before present your claims.

The article clearly said that scholars disagree with the black or white ancient Egyptians.

Cambridge is not only the authority on this subject, how many times will I say this?

No, I have refuted this claim above.

Lol. One of the reference in that Wikipedia page about Black Egyptians is from Yale university, are they not trusted?

No, you are forcing me to accept it as the only source on this subject.

tintingz:
Did you read the article at all?

It is talking about mirror source, when you're using Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.

Here is rule number one in the same link you presented.

Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Please read and understand the content of the link you are providing.

vaxx:
You are only repeating after me. Why that?

You are still repeating after me.

Good. Simple, that is what i am telling you since and you are finding it difficult to let it sink into your head.

Now, it appear to me you are not debating but just trolling, The page i posted on the Wikipedia report actually expose more than what you quoted averagely. It is essential you read the whole context So as to not give pseudo conclusion. Am tempted to ask if you are going there to read what suit your opinion or the entire Article.

You are simply trolling me. Just admit. Learn and relearn. The hypothetical claim you read are not false. But claims under investigation. That is what hypothesis means.

vaxx:
You are a troller.

I have state in my entire reply with you that wikipedia is a third party information center. An relying on it is not standard as it depends on other information. All the Wikipedia links i submit agree with that.

No academia or any suitable scientific paper will ever reference Wikipedia. It is not a standard.


So repating after me, will not solve the initial flaws you committed . relying on such Wikipedia in the presence of reliable and trusted evidence is a complete hogwash

It baffles me you are not learning but trolling.

tintingz:
Does Wikipedia attach reliable sources to their articles, yes or no?

tintingz:
No.

Myth are just fairytales.

No.


No, I've been telling you the Wikipedia article has references.

Lol, now I'm trolling?

My premise was about Wikipedia having references in their article therefore it is reliable in this case, you're the one trolling.

My goodness.

vaxx:
i think the question you should ask is, does Wikipedia established itself as an authority? In which i will say no. Wikipedia rely on multiple source for its assertion. No doubt, but It employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy like a well established scientific paper or academic websites.

Here is an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit who owns the Wikipedia website, advising people: "Don't trust Wikipedia", and he explains why. Skip to time code 0:59 to hear what he says.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK-Tp4__f-0&x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260

vaxx:
hogwash . ""Stop the trolls"". Pls i want to play some video games.

tintingz:
Lmfao!!!

Dude, does Wikipedia has reliable sources in their articles, kindly answer yes or no?

The man in the video was only playing fair, he gave good reasons. "Don't trust Wikipedia, any articles without citations don't trust it, double check the citation and make your own decisions

Let assume Cambridge report was found in Wikipedia reference, is it reliable?

Now, what if I clicked on the reliable sources cited on Wikipedia and started using them to support my claims, are you still gonna argue about that?

Seriously, there is no difference searching on google for sources and collating them to prove a point.

Now back to the argument. These reports here are another thing regarding your report.

https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egypt-and-black-africa/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/29/mummy-dna-ancient-egyptians-middle-eastern-todays-african-mixed-population/


Please don't tell me they are not reliable.

vaxx:
This is not an inteligent question ( sorry for the used of the words) what matter is if the evidence used by the Wikipedia on its own is a standard source Since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody regardless of their qualification, the reliability of their source become fragile. So what to do as independent researcher is to evaluate the accuracy of the article cited which is is a lot of work, if you want to do it right, but here's what it would involve. Pick the article. Find the most authoritative secondary and tertiary sources on that same topic. Read and correctly understand these sources. Evaluate how what you have learned differs from the content of the Wikipedia article. Try to figure out cause for the discrepancies, by examining the sources cited in the Wikipedia article.

You will probably find that the article was pretty good, but with some weakness. After you have done all this work, you will be in a very good position to improve the article yourself. I used wikipedia also but adjust myself an authentic and credible reference is available.

The Wikipedia employee " actually know that, it is ignorance to rely on such a secondary source. Rather follow the citation and cross check for authenticity.

Good, you then verified cambridge report and scrutinized it and see if the report is exactly what is written on Wikipedia or it contain any form of bias.

They are diffrence, wikipedia can be edited and written by nedited by anybody. All what you need is to be a registered member. And once you registerd, you are good to go. Such a webpage can be influence by self bias or financial gain. So it is always accurate to cross -check if what is found in such article cited by the editors is in agreements with what is found on the Wikipedia page.
,

Not disputing if one evidence is not accurate as any other, my argument is an open source like wikipedia is not reliable which Wikipedia itself honestly agree except you.

[s]The volume of information in these weblinks you cited now is influenced by the opinion of the author just like many other books. So to tell the difference between it and Cambridge. Read their historical books or article on the same topic, You will see a difference for sure. What is and isn't true is up to how much proofing you are willing to do, and your own opinion will play a major part in your excepted truth.

Cambridge is a trademark on her own, making her impacts on this topic a very robust conclusion. Such a citadel of learning will try as much to seprate itself from bias. It has a reputation to protect. Nonetheless it is an European university which should be bias by rejecting african supremacy. [/s]

nwabekeyi:
Quantum mechanic says that "nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer"

Everyone create their own truth, it doesn't mean everyone is right. Only does who do proper research are right.

For me, there's no proof that juju is real

CAPSLOCKED:
THE JUJU OF ALL 54 COUNTRIES ON THE CONTINENT PUT TOGETHER CANNOT BRING HOME THE FOOTBALL WORLD CUP TROPHY, JUST THE SAME WAY IT COULDN'T STOP THE EUROPEANS FROM INVADING AND CAGING US LIKE CHICKENS.

WITH OUR JUJU WE CANNOT DEVELOP VACCINES, OR PUT ROCKETS IN SPACE.

WE SOMEHOW BELIEVE WE CANNOT ACQUIRE JOBS OR GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITH JUJU. WE BELIEVE WE CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS WITH JUJU OR TRAVEL FROM BENIN TO CHINA MAGICALLY... OUR JUJU IS ONLY CAPABLE OF CAUSING ILLNESSES AND DEATH TO THOSE THAT ALSO BELIEVE TRASH LIKE US.

ARE WE NOT FOOLS TO BELIEVE THESE NONSENSE THINGS?

ChiefAzubuike:

HellVictorinho:


Don't believe in juju.
Just accept that certain people have issues and be careful with them.

obinna58:
I once believed in juju but consistent failure from those expertise made me think otherwise

If juju is real why wouldn't it be shown on cam besides Africa would have been the most powerful continent