WWTL FAQ (Version 1.07)

Steve Firth wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > Here is a statement by Nature.
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html
> > There are several links provided about sources, refutation and response.
>
> The fact is that both sources were evaluated in a double blind study. It
> was a much better controlled study than any comparison of published
> works that I have seen, most of which tend to be the prejudices of a
> critic regurgitated without any form of peer review.
>
> That Scott "Insert Random Initial Here" Kazel hadn't heard of the study
> shows how much credence one can give to his pronouncements on the
> validity of sources.

Scott's not so bad you know. He is rightly critical of 'dubious stuff' and I
have in the past found his website ( not sure where the link is now ) quite
interesting.

However we can all be dogmatic sometimes, often without realising it.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
>> location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
>> lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
>> Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
>> assertions. So I say again: Do tell.
>
> I posted many maps and also definitions of the word "strait".
>
> From its name, I had always imagined Hood was sunk to the North of Iceland.
> This thread resulted in me discovering to my surprise that it sank to the
> SOUTH of Iceland !
>
> We even had an Icelander support my and Steve's view that Hood did not sink
> in the 'Denmark Strait' 'proper' and he has local knowledge we don't.
>
> Here's another map for you.
> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...x?name=Iceland
>
> The co-ordinates for the site od Hood's wreck are given as " the "vicinity"
> of 63.2200N 032.1700W, or roughly 270 miles / 400km west-southwest of
> Reykjavik, Iceland."
> http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
>
> Find 63.22 N and 32.17 W on that map and tell me with a striaght fact it's in
> the Denmark Strait please. Fell free to zoom out.
>
> I did but don't know how to provide a link. At the inteception of 64N and 32W
> quite clearly the words "Atlantic Ocean" are present.
>
> You can even click on 63N and 32W and it comes up the same.
>

Since we're putting up maps, try mine, an actual navigation chart (it
may take some time to load if you are using dial-up at ~700K):

http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Hig...tuff/JNC20.jpg

This is a set of scans from the aviation chart that I mentioned before.
The lines don't quite match up but it's close enough to make the
point. It would have cost me $30 to make a single color scan down at
FedEx/Kinko's so I made do with what I had.

The black circle in the lower left panel shows the location of the
coordinates that you provided. Note the words that pass by just to the
right of that location. Tell me with a straight face that it's not in
the Denmark Strait please.

--Andy

Steve Firth wrote:
> Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
>
>> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
>> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
>> level of more confidence.
>
> Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?

The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
thing?

--Andy

Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >
> >> I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
> >> location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
> >> lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
> >> Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
> >> assertions. So I say again: Do tell.
> >
> > I posted many maps and also definitions of the word "strait".
> >
> > From its name, I had always imagined Hood was sunk to the North of Iceland.
> > This thread resulted in me discovering to my surprise that it sank to the
> > SOUTH of Iceland !
> >
> > We even had an Icelander support my and Steve's view that Hood did not sink
> > in the 'Denmark Strait' 'proper' and he has local knowledge we don't.
> >
> > Here's another map for you.
> > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...x?name=Iceland
> >
> > The co-ordinates for the site od Hood's wreck are given as " the "vicinity"
> > of 63.2200N 032.1700W, or roughly 270 miles / 400km west-southwest of
> > Reykjavik, Iceland."
> > http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
> >
> > Find 63.22 N and 32.17 W on that map and tell me with a striaght fact it's in
> > the Denmark Strait please. Fell free to zoom out.
> >
> > I did but don't know how to provide a link. At the inteception of 64N and 32W
> > quite clearly the words "Atlantic Ocean" are present.
> >
> > You can even click on 63N and 32W and it comes up the same.
>
> Since we're putting up maps, try mine, an actual navigation chart (it
> may take some time to load if you are using dial-up at ~700K):
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Hig...tuff/JNC20.jpg

It took a couple of seconds but I have fast broadband.


> This is a set of scans from the aviation chart that I mentioned before.
> The lines don't quite match up but it's close enough to make the
> point. It would have cost me $30 to make a single color scan down at
> FedEx/Kinko's so I made do with what I had.
>
> The black circle in the lower left panel shows the location of the
> coordinates that you provided. Note the words that pass by just to the
> right of that location. Tell me with a straight face that it's not in
> the Denmark Strait please.

We seem to have a variety of maps that contradict each other then.

Going back to the original definition of a strait I posted , they are *Narrow*
bodies of water like the Strait of Dover which is itself a subset of the English
channel that Scott wanted to call the English Strait IIRC. In fact it is both a
channel where wider and a Strait where narrower. Where Hood sank it was 570 mi
between Iceland and Geenland. Not quite what I'd call a Strait.

Maybe we should call the IMO ?

Graham

Andrew Tompkins > wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> >
> >> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> >> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> >> level of more confidence.
> >
> > Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> > little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
>
> The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
> Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
> date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
> thing?

Not as far as I am aware. Are you still trying to clutch straws in an
attempt to discredit a source that doesn't support your prejudices?

There's no evidence to suggest that standards at Wikipedia have dived,
in fact if anything they seem to be tightening.

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
>>>> location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
>>>> lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
>>>> Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
>>>> assertions. So I say again: Do tell.
>>> I posted many maps and also definitions of the word "strait".
>>>
>>> From its name, I had always imagined Hood was sunk to the North of Iceland.
>>> This thread resulted in me discovering to my surprise that it sank to the
>>> SOUTH of Iceland !
>>>
>>> We even had an Icelander support my and Steve's view that Hood did not sink
>>> in the 'Denmark Strait' 'proper' and he has local knowledge we don't.
>>>
>>> Here's another map for you.
>>> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...x?name=Iceland
>>>
>>> The co-ordinates for the site od Hood's wreck are given as " the "vicinity"
>>> of 63.2200N 032.1700W, or roughly 270 miles / 400km west-southwest of
>>> Reykjavik, Iceland."
>>> http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
>>>
>>> Find 63.22 N and 32.17 W on that map and tell me with a striaght fact it's in
>>> the Denmark Strait please. Fell free to zoom out.
>>>
>>> I did but don't know how to provide a link. At the inteception of 64N and 32W
>>> quite clearly the words "Atlantic Ocean" are present.
>>>
>>> You can even click on 63N and 32W and it comes up the same.
>> Since we're putting up maps, try mine, an actual navigation chart (it
>> may take some time to load if you are using dial-up at ~700K):
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Hig...tuff/JNC20.jpg
>
> It took a couple of seconds but I have fast broadband.
>
>
>> This is a set of scans from the aviation chart that I mentioned before.
>> The lines don't quite match up but it's close enough to make the
>> point. It would have cost me $30 to make a single color scan down at
>> FedEx/Kinko's so I made do with what I had.
>>
>> The black circle in the lower left panel shows the location of the
>> coordinates that you provided. Note the words that pass by just to the
>> right of that location. Tell me with a straight face that it's not in
>> the Denmark Strait please.
>
> We seem to have a variety of maps that contradict each other then.
>
> Going back to the original definition of a strait I posted , they are *Narrow*
> bodies of water like the Strait of Dover which is itself a subset of the English
> channel that Scott wanted to call the English Strait IIRC. In fact it is both a
> channel where wider and a Strait where narrower. Where Hood sank it was 570 mi
> between Iceland and Geenland. Not quite what I'd call a Strait.
>
> Maybe we should call the IMO ?
>

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I prefer stuff on navigation
charts, having used them extensively for a time in my life. You seem to
prefer worded definitions. I find all too often that those definitions
don't quite match up with what's out there in the real world, especially
when it comes to the vagaries of physical features of the world.

--Andy

Steve Firth wrote:

> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> > > Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> > >
> > >> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> > >> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> > >> level of more confidence.
> > >
> > > Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> > > little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
> >
> > The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
> > Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
> > date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
> > thing?
>
> Not as far as I am aware. Are you still trying to clutch straws in an
> attempt to discredit a source that doesn't support your prejudices?
>
> There's no evidence to suggest that standards at Wikipedia have dived,
> in fact if anything they seem to be tightening.

Its popularity tends to make that so. The wealth of info is staggering.

Graham

(Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
>> Here is a statement by Nature.
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html
>> There are several links provided about sources, refutation and response.
>
> The fact is that both sources were evaluated in a double blind study. It
> was a much better controlled study than any comparison of published
> works that I have seen, most of which tend to be the prejudices of a
> critic regurgitated without any form of peer review.
>
> That Scott "Insert Random Initial Here" Kazel hadn't heard of the study
> shows how much credence one can give to his pronouncements on the
> validity of sources.

Nature magazine is a one of hundreds of magazines, and like I said if
not for the volumes of verbal diarrhea (diarrhoea) that you have posted
here, more posters would have read your post with the link.

Scott M. Kozel > wrote:

> Nature magazine is a one of hundreds of magazines, and like I said if
> not for the volumes of verbal diarrhea (diarrhoea) that you have posted
> here, more posters would have read your post with the link.

Bull****.

Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> >
> >> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> >> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> >> level of more confidence.
> >
> > Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> > little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
>
> The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
> Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
> date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
> thing?

Are you suggesting it's got worse ? If so, please provide evidence.

Graham