The truth bout Persians and Iran

[Parskahay]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

i only trust very good sources like wikipedia read about ketrevan
yes its liberation georgia was going to be persiasn forever so persiasn must live there
here is my source

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

show me a international and good source like this
so this is a better way you think?
americans killed 99% of natives there

[Army]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

i only trust very good sources like wikipedia

ha ha ha

yes its liberation georgia was going to be persiasn forever so persiasn must live there

Thats it. I knew you were just another Persian fascist. Such a lame loser.

[Parskahay]

Re: The truth bout Persians and Iran

and i knew you are a turk who hate the way iran helps armenia i didnt wanted georgia to be persian forever they wanted.you failed in all posts you replied in this topic one after an other
you just cant accept you failed.laughing at truth....

[LadySilver]

Re: The truth bout Persians and Iran

Can we please act likes adults and not insult one another.

[KanadaHye]

Re: The truth bout Persians and Iran

Can we please act likes adults and not insult one another.

HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHHA

[LadySilver]

Re: The truth bout Persians and Iran

HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHHA

Ok you can stay regressed it's ok =)

[Crimson Glow]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

i only trust very good sources like wikipedia

I HOPE you're joking, Parska"hay". How is Wikipedia a "very good/trusted source"? Do you not understand how Wiki works? Anyone can go in and edit anything at any given time. There is no credentials or identity check. I could go in an alter that very entry right now, and "cite" some sources. It's a great place to gather some basic info, but it is NOT scholarly by any stretch of the imagination.

[Armanen]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

I HOPE you're joking, Parska"hay". How is Wikipedia a "very good/trusted source"? Do you not understand how Wiki works? Anyone can go in and edit anything at any given time. There is no credentials or identity check. I could go in an alter that very entry right now, and "cite" some sources. It's a great place to gather some basic info, but it is NOT scholarly by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree, especially when one looks at their history articles. There are thousands of editors on the wikipedia english site who have some kind of agenda to push.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

I agree, especially when one looks at their history articles. There are thousands of editors on the wikipedia english site who have some kind of agenda to push.

No, you have a bit of a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what agenda an editor there might have, he or she cannot simply make an article claiming grass is blue and the sky is green. Skillful propagandists get books published that contain their propaganda, and get newspaper articles written containing their propaganda, and get (or pay) journalists to mention their propaganda. Those then become sources which can be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is uninterested in truth, uninterested in knowledge, it is interested only in sources. Wikipedia is a carrier and disseminator of second-hand propaganda and agendas. If enough sources say the sky is green, a Wikipedia article will say the sky is green.

On Wikipedia there are some 100 or so active administrators (out of a total of about 800 I think), most of them just act as meat puppets for about 20 or 30 core administrators. It is they who have the agenda, and it is they who cause (and guarantee the continuity of) all of Wikipedia's core problems.

[Armanen]

Re: the truth about persians and iran

No, you have a bit of a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what agenda an editor there might have, he or she cannot simply make an article claiming grass is blue and the sky is green. Skillful propagandists get books published that contain their propaganda, and get newspaper articles written containing their propaganda, and get (or pay) journalists to mention their propaganda. Those then become sources which can be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is uninterested in truth, uninterested in knowledge, it is interested only in sources. Wikipedia is a carrier and disseminator of second-hand propaganda and agendas. If enough sources say the sky is green, a Wikipedia article will say the sky is green.

On Wikipedia there are some 100 or so active administrators (out of a total of about 800 I think), most of them just act as meat puppets for about 20 or 30 core administrators. It is they who have the agenda, and it is they who cause (and guarantee the continuity of) all of Wikipedia's core problems.

I agree. I would add that the editors that I mention use this system to spread their agenda. Some will bring in obscure or bs sources, yet if they have the backing of an admin it will likely stay. On the other hand if an editor brings in the same sources without the backing of an admin it will be shot down and no changes will be made.