RE: HIST: SPEC: Clovis is Louis?

Steve you could not be more wrong, when you say the
big stink over the wikipedia is made by those that
have the most to loose. I have spent the last ten
years of my life working on checklists for the Iris
society. I hesitate to think how much it has cost me
personally. I have always given this information out
freely and have never made a cent off of it. What
drives me is creating resources that have information
available that is accurate and accessible. I admire
the concept of the wikipedia and regret that like so
many other things hoaxters and prankster and people
with adgendas have begun using this to play with
peoples minds. Of course you are correct that an
attributed fact is more likely to be correct than one
in which there is no stated source. But in this
computor age it is so easy for misinformation to be
spread in an instant it is hard to give credence to
much that is on the internet. Considering all the
urban mythes, and political dysinformation. It does
not mean that someone has a vested interest to be
suspicious of anything on the internet. But perhaps
you are appropriately suspicious considering the
comment was amde in an e-mail.

--- Steve Szabo <steve@familyszabo.com> wrote:

> It is not a problem with wikipedia, any more than it
> is a problem with any
> book you would buy or borrow. The same things happen
> in both places. As it
> goes, whether using a book as a resource, or the
> web, check and double check
> the information you find. If sources are not cited,
> than any information is
> suspect, unless you trust the author of said
> information. 
> 
> In my mind, the big stink over a source such as
> wikipedia is made by those
> who have the most to lose by dissemination of
> information for no cost vs.
> the cost that had previously been applied to it.
> 
> 
> \\Steve// 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-iris@hort.net
> [o*@hort.net] On Behalf Of Robt R
> Pries
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:55 PM
> To: iris@hort.net
> Subject: Re: [iris] HIST: SPEC: Clovis is Louis?
> 
> There is a rather unfortunate side to 'Wikipedia'
> information. It is not attributed to an author. In
> fact it is made from many authors and the
> credentials
> of any of them are unknown. Unfortunately it was
> recently shown that people have used the wikipedia
> to
> promote their own ideas whether well-founded or not.
> I
> wish it were a better source but it is now highly
> quetionable whether information gathered there has
> any
> credibility at all. 
> 
> --- ChatOWhitehall@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Greetings.
> >  
> > I ran into something thought provoking the other
> day
> > when I followed a  link 
> > in a Wikipedia article I was reading.
> >  
> > Many may well be sick unto death of the hoary
> > question of the  origin of the 
> > Fleur-de-Lis and whether it is or is not an Iris. 
> > Clarence reminded us 
> > several years ago in Roots of Mrs. Peckham's 
> > discovery of the use of a similar 
> > motif in Roman iconography--a 
> "Sprout"--associated
> > with the demi-goddess 
> > Spes--Hope-- and he has expanded that  research
> > along other useful and interesting 
> > lines as well. I myself think  it is an even older
> > motif, albeit one associated 
> > with a crop god,  Triptolemus. Crop gods always
> tend
> > to involve notions of Hope.
> >  
> > Much ink has been devoted to the legend of King
> > Clovis and the origin  of the 
> > phrase Fleur de Lis-- Lys-- Luce-- with some
> > versions of the name as  Fleur 
> > de Louis and so on and so forth forever with
> > variations right up to  the 
> > display of the golden motif on the banner of the
> > Bourbon kings of  France. The iris 
> > generally thought to be the Iris of Clovis, if  he
> > actually had one, is Iris 
> > pseudacorus, the magnificent golden flag,  now in
> > some juridictions deemed a 
> > noxious weed.  
> >  
> > Anyway, what the article in Wiki suggests is that
> > the evolution of  language 
> > may play a highly meaningful role in the story. In
> > other  words, the Fleur de 
> > Louis may be the Fleur de Clovis. I  don't have
> > enough background in this area 
> > to do other than toss  out the link for the
> > amusement of any who may be 
> > intrigued. This may  actually be old news to many.
> > Possibly even I  once knew it 
> > and forgot  it, which happens from time to time as
> > my memory becomes more and 
> > more like  a pack rat's nest. 
> >  
> > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I_ 
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I) 
> >  
> > Cordially,
> >  
> > Anner Whitehead
> > Richmond VA USA 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to
> majordomo@hort.net with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index