[hobbes300]

Contradicting Wikipedia does not equal a lack of truth.

[sltkr]

No, but information on Wikipedia tends to be accurate and based on reliable sources -- when a person contradicts Wikipedia and fails to provide any sources of their own, they are usually wrong. Not necessarily, of course, but often enough to say the burden of proof lies with the person making the unsubstantiated claim.

[saraid216]

Uh. There was a source provided: 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.

I wouldn't call that more reliable, but it's still as valid a source as Wikipedia.

[mgraczyk]

The 1911 Britannica is not the source provided. The source is a hypothetical entry in an encyclopedia that most people don't have. That is not as valuable a source as Wikipedia because I cannot easily verify that the 1911 Britannica corroborates the facts in this email.

[acqq]

The text of the whole 1911 Britannica is just one Google away:

https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJV...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica

[saraid216]

Just because you are lazy and unwilling to verify the source doesn't mean it's not a source.

[maxerickson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_inc...

[sltkr]

You're right -- my mistake. I missed that somehow.