Wiki article slandering John Knox

[CDM]

Anyone read the Wiki article on John Knox? It trashes him often.

In an earlier interview, Knox had told Mary that he was "as well content to live under your Grace as St Paul was to live under Nero". Knox's theories about women rulers reveal him as a misogynist and a prude. The reason women were not fit to rule, according to him, was that they were "idolatresses" who set reason aside and ruled by their emotions. This view of female psychology made Knox not only offensive to Mary but dangerous. It fed his political theory, set out in "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women", that it was legitimate for the people to overthrow and even execute female rulers because of precedents in the Bible, for example the cases of Jezebel and Athalia, in which female rulers were overthrown to the obvious benefit of the state.

Mary moved against Knox by having him arrested and put on trial after he summoned a "convocation of the brethren", in terms that could be interpreted as incitement to violence, to free two Calvinists who had threatened one of the royal priests. He was charged with conspiracy "to raise a tumult" against the queen, but he led his own defence and was acquitted.​

How do you challenge the authenticity/objectivity of a Wiki article?

 

[panta dokimazete]

i think you can just sign up for an account and edit it or challenge it.

 

[JasonGoodwin]

i think you can just sign up for an account and edit it or challenge it.

Yep! Sure can. I have an account with them as well. Believe me, they will take notice.

 

[Average Joey]

Yep! Sure can. I have an account with them as well. Believe me, they will take notice.

I will be watching this.

Where`s that popcorn smilie.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[panta dokimazete]

 

[Staphlobob]

i think you can just sign up for an account and edit it or challenge it.

You don't actually NEED an account. Simply change it. In fact, I just this moment deleted the offensive and highly subjective paragraph (which I suspect was inserted by some lesbian-type or intellectual equivalent).

Now, not having an account with Wikipedia anyone who wants to see the history of changes can view my ip address. But having an account hides that information.

Yours in Christ,
Kevin
Baltimore, MD

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No popcorn for me.

Wiki is just proof that dilletants like us don't need to be writing, or in this case, re-writing history. That entry is clearly biased in favor of a modern ethos, one that defines "misogyny" as "anything that opposes rank philosophical egalitarianism." It only highlights the limited (as opposed to unlimited) usefulness of the internet as an information exchange. The real downside to Wiki is the idea of the "democratic" nature of truth. In a few hours or days, some new (or old) opinion will replace the "correction" as the new "orthodoxy".

Is it really that much fun to sit back and watch people neuter one another's speech? Or one-up the other by inflamatory rhetoric? I'd rather save energy for truly egregious examples of opinion or interpretation put forward as fact.

But, to each his own.

 

[Average Joey]

You don't actually NEED an account. Simply change it. In fact, I just this moment deleted the offensive and highly subjective paragraph (which I suspect was inserted by some lesbian-type or intellectual equivalent).

Now, not having an account with Wikipedia anyone who wants to see the history of changes can view my ip address. But having an account hides that information.

Yours in Christ,
Kevin
Baltimore, MD

It`s still there.

 

[reformedman]

I agree with ContraMundum, I'd just ignore it. Just about everyone knows that wiki is virtually created by people with an agenda of some sort. You can make any great reputable solid entry which anyone knows, and someone will come along and totally reverse it. It's pretty well known that wiki can't be trusted for info.

 

[Pilgrim]

It`s still there.

The part about being a prude and misogynist is gone.