Wikileaks rides again

[Turtle]

LOL .... that would seem to be a rather absolute statement ..... as though it were simply and entirely an empirical matter.

Correct.

That is clearly not the case - I'm afraid that things aren't quite as cut and dried as you are making them out to be.

Yes it is. Just because a few people believe the world is flat doesn't mean it's flat. Pluto is still a planet. Still, I tell you!

Obviously, you have chosen to agree with the 7 continent premise.

Correct. I prefer to go with what actually is, rather than tradition or romanticism or whatever reasons for it. The Earth has 7 primary continental plates. They are the African Plate, Antarctic Plate, Eurasian, Indo-Australian, North American Plate, Pacific Plate, and the South American Plate. If there were 8 plates, or 6 plates, I'd agree with the 8 or 6 continent premise, but there are 7 of 'em, so that's what I'm going with.

You are of course free to go with whatever you like. But I'll keep telling you you're wrong if you don't go with 7.

 

[Freightdawg]

Cute

Many reference materials - including big name, rather expensive, written ones - are not always accurate. It's an inherent liability of using info from another, as opposed to direct personal experience and observation.

So, tell me ..... what online reference encyclopedia do you use ?

Wikipedia is not an online reference encyclopedia. It is a place where people who think they know things can go to write about those things which they think they know.

 

[Freightdawg]

This may or may not be true. This is from Wikipedia, about Wikipedia.


Quality

Because contributors usually rewrite small portions of an entry

rather than making full-length revisions, high- and low-quality

content may be intermingled within an entry.



Reliability

Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no

guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately

responsible for any claims appearing in it.

 

[RLENT]

No, it would not be my error. It would be Wiki's error, which is why I said, "Also, you have to be careful relying too much on Wikipedia.[/I]

We all do ....

The quote you cited was from Wiki,

That would be correct: it was a quote of a sentence in a Wikipedia article, which appears to have been written by a Wikipedia editor.

but THEY cited it from the Olympic PDF file, and referenced it directly as footnote #23, which you also provided in your post.

Not exactly a correct characterization - if you believe it to be an citing of a (altered) quote from the Olympic PDF.

They referenced to the Olympic PDF file as the source of the data ... yes, that is true.

However, if you look at the sentence, you will see that it is not enclosed in quotes in the Wiki article (some sentences, or portions of sentences, are)

You can, in fact, find both types of sentences and/or text (quote-marked and non quote-marked) in the article which we are now discussing.

But the text they used does not appear anywhere in the PDF document.

Of course not - they weren't quoting text from the PDF.

There are parts of articles on Wikipedia where direct quotations of material contained in source references are used. I believe these are generally enclosed in quotation marks ...

There are also parts of articles where the editor has written, in his own words, a statement which is based on source reference materials. You yourself are undoubtedly highly familiar with this practice on a personal basis, as am I.

The text was changed, where they added "participating continents", which is something that's not supposed to be done when doing a direct footnoted reference on Wiki.

The text was not "changed" ..... because it was not lifted from the source reference material - it was simply something that one or more Wiki editors constructed in their own words, using the source reference material as the basis for what they stated in their own words.

which is something that's not supposed to be done when doing a direct footnoted reference on Wiki.

If you would care to cite a link where this is so stated, so I and others can read it for ourselves, I for one, would be quite happy to do so. Perhaps others would as well.

In the meantime, while you're digging that up just keep in mind the 5th Pillar

Riddle me this:

Given the above, which 5 continents do you believe are being referring to ..... if the five include all continents from which participants came ?

Easy... Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa and America.

Correct - you win a cookie.

But that doesn't mean Baron Pierre de Coubertin was right in combining the two Americas into one.

However, that was largely the prevailing thought of most Europeans at the time, so I can't fault him on that one.

Ahh yes .... rightness .... being right .... interesting subject in terms of the human animal ....

You know who first came up with the idea for the five rings and gave it to de Coubertin?

Sauron, the Dark Lord ?

.... oh wait ... that was a different story .... and a different number of rings ....

Some dood named Carl Jung. Now you and Dr Jung have something in common.

Well, like I always say: Better Jung than the Dark Lord ...

 

[RLENT]

LOL .... that would seem to be a rather absolute statement ..... as though it were simply and entirely an empirical matter.

Correct.

Unfortunately, no, it isn't ....

That is clearly not the case - I'm afraid that things aren't quite as cut and dried as you are making them out to be.

Yes it is.

Well .... we shall see ..... read on, mon ami ....

Just because a few people believe the world is flat doesn't mean it's flat.

Well, that's actually quite true .... and it is an empirical fact .... unlike the seven continents thingie ....

Pluto is still a planet. Still, I tell you!

At least for this week ...... unless the IAU decides to change it's mind again ... and then it will be a planet once more ...

Obviously, you have chosen to agree with the 7 continent premise.

Correct. I prefer to go with what actually is, rather than tradition or romanticism or whatever reasons for it.

LOL .... I dunno ..... I was thinkin' it was lookin' like more of a deferral-to-authority kinda thing from over here ....

The Earth has 7 primary continental plates. They are the African Plate, Antarctic Plate, Eurasian, Indo-Australian, North American Plate, Pacific Plate, and the South American Plate. If there were 8 plates, or 6 plates, I'd agree with the 8 or 6 continent premise, but there are 7 of 'em, so that's what I'm going with.

Unfortunately for your premise, while the number of primary plates is equal to the number of continents, under your 7 continent model, there is not a one to one correspondence of the seven primary plates to the named 7 continents ....

Two of the continents share the same plate (Europe, Asia) ... and one of them is beneath the ocean ...... and contains no recognized continents whatsoever (Pacific Plate) .....

Oops ! ....

Additionally, if the primary plates were the only determinant factor, we'd be calling Eastern Siberia a part of North America ..... since it is part of the North American plate .....

I have to tell you I am just utterly shocked by all of this.

You are of course free to go with whatever you like.

As are you .... but please - for god's sake man - don't do it on fallacious basis

But I'll keep telling you you're wrong if you don't go with 7.

By all means - feel free to have at it ..... but just explain to me and the home viewing audience this one thing:

How does the logical fallacy of composition you enumerated above, have any bearing whatsoever on what are continents ? ....

 

[jaminjim]

Seven plates or Five
This might help!

 

[RLENT]

Seven plates or Five
This might help!

Hmmmm .... no wonder I felt like I had heard this whole conversation somewhere before .... it was in the funnies ....