blixxard, on Dec 4 2004, 01:19 AM, said:
Amusing - yes. Did you go back to at the index page to see the main focus of the site ? It's good to see you using your critical faculties late at night, but I suspect this is just copied from an online encyclopedia (without acknowledgement). I'm no expert on Cleopatra, but where I was sure of - my facts the 'belly dance' article seemed OK to me. When evaluating reliabilty you do need to consider more than just the provenance as I am aware you appreciate given what you say below about wikipedia/d'Orleans.
Anyway ....
Quote
To be honest nothing beats a good old book!
We agree on that one.
[quote=Mrs Faithorn]I don't suppose one would give too much credence to someone called 'blixxard'.[/quote]
Nooo. That goes off my post count.
You got me started on wikipedia now
http://en.wikipedia....ke_of_Orl%E9ans
Quote
Philippe was a professed atheist who boasted to read the satirical works of François Rabelais inside a Bible binding during mass, and liked to hold orgies even on religious high holidays.
I would strongly criticise/question that sentence. I cannot find any evidence to support wikipedia’s claim to Philippe as an atheist.
There was some other stuff on the partition of Poland, but too tired to remember.
Wikipedia is generally written by people who know a lot about the subject (well hopefully) but are sided to one point of view.
[/quote]
Can only repeat that thus far I have found wikipedia reliable enough whenever I have used it. YMMV.
I don't know enough about d'Orleans I'm afraid, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a whole 'book' was unreliable on the basis of one or two pieces of evidence. It would make me more wary though and I shall check more carefully than usual in future. So thanks for that.