First let me get out the way: so many of these one named dudes had two names in common usage. Yeah Christ was a later addition to Jesus' name, but what about Mohandas Gandhi? I feel like the quiz over simplified a lot of these people's names. But i really liked the quiz so I'm not going to go on about it too much.
But this rag on Wikipedia business is what annoys me: "meh meh meh, it's not a valid source". Stop regurgitating the rhetoric your teachers have vomited into you. anything is a valid secondary source, provided it utilises pertinent primary sources. The onus is on the individual to check those sources.
Plenty of lectures I've had have pulled the old do as i say not as i do: citing it whilst saying don't use it.
The reason they say that is because they want to encourage you to scratch a bit deeper when doing research, not take things at face value.
Plenty of professionals consult it to double check their knowledge: it's quite evident when info on there has been falsified.
Wikipedia is not a secondary source. It's a tertiary source. It's fantastic to use it as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia, should never be cited in a formal paper, nor should any other encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is, in most cases, a reliable source, specifically if keeping an eye on the references. ... Most incorrect references in Wikipedia pages -- of major topics -- are corrected in short order. ... It is every bit as reliable on those major subjects as any other site.
It's an awesome starting point with a trove of references that any student should at the very least look at.On a related tangent, I hope students are being taught how to use Microsoft Word's features to style and automatically manage things like the table of contents, bibliographies, references, etc. It's night and day from when I was a student.
I love wikipedia and I use it all the time, not for papers though. Teachers don't like it because they think it is unreliable or it is too easy for the students. But anyone can tell when the articles have been edited so I don't understand what the problem is. Don't trust wikipedia if you see that the article has been edited which is rarely, and everything is fine.
Speaking of correct spellings, the quiz gives us "Japanese emperor" and "Aztec emporer". And I don't even need to consult Wikipedia to know which one is correct!
Wikipedia is a great boon to all of us, there is no denying that! I use it constantly. I think however that many teachers are properly cautioning you, especially on more esoteric subjects. In my research I've found a few entries that were either wrong or had a very heavy editorial bent towards a specific viewpoint that might or might not be the accepted view or simply did not reflect known facts at all. One of them for a long time was the entry on the above mentioned emperor, Nero. If you'd read the original wikipedia entry on "Nero" you would have thought he was an all-around great guy who was one of Rome's greatest emperors... the historian who'd written the entry is one of a very few who like to ignore all the contemporary accounts from Nero's own time and create a "kinder gentler Nero". It's been modified some at this point, but it's still off center to a degree. Likewise, when researching some villages and towns in my county that the State of New York had forcibly moved people from in order to create som
I'm surprised no one on here is arguing that Jesus does have a last name. For any future people that will, Christ comes from the latin word Christos, which means messiah. So really "Christ" is Jesus's title, not his name.
though in all written ancient sources he is never referred to by that title. In one place he is referred to as bin Mariam... which is extremely odd. It's possible that "bin/bar Yossef" references have been destroyed by later Christians who believed it went against their belief that Jesus was the son of a god.
I think you need to accept the alternative spelling of "Sakakawea". Having just returned from Bismarck, North Dakota, that seems to be the standard spelling in that state at least. See Sakakawea statue.
Pocahontas always makes me smile. For any of you who've ever seen/played the game "Password"....when I was a kid, my parents would play Password with my aunt and uncle. The Password was "dot". My mom is giving the clue to my aunt, and she just knows she's got a slam dunk, first-clue, 10-point winner. So she says, "Polka......" (extending the 2nd syllable to suggest that she wants the word that logically comes next) Without hesitating, my aunt enthusiastically responds, "Hontas!" To which, my mom, in utter disbelief replies, "What's a hontas?!!!" One of those crazy moments that becomes family legend. They're all gone now, but it still brings a smile to my face when I think of it. Such good, fun memories.
Can't speak for others, but my schooling only gave very basic coverage to the Crusades - more or less when they were and what they were about. We didn't go into anywhere near as much detail as the subject deserves. I blame the fact that world history classes tended to teach the same stuff over and over again, because most of the students didn't retain from year to year.
I think I first heard about them in Mr. Ahern's 6th grade class when we were studying world history, though not in very much detail. Then in 9th grade World Civilizations GT we learned about them a bit more in-depth and this was the year I think that I learned of Salad ad-Din. And later in 12th grade when I was taking AP European History (an elective) we learned about them even more in-depth including, I recall, the Children's Crusade and Venetian/Crusader sacking of Constantinople.
Reflecting on this just now it occurred to me that I may have first heard of Salah ad-Din playing Genghis Khan 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System. I remember the Mamluks being in that game. I looked it up and he appears in one scenario but I'm not sure if I played that scenario or not.
The Sistine Chapel clue was also vague... if you'd said "painter of the Sistine Chapel" I would have got it right away but I think first I guessed Peter (for his basilica) and Paul and then a couple popes before arriving at the painter of the ceiling.
Well, just a humble comment from a Mexican guy: The question about the Aztec emperor has the wrong answer. The correct one is Cuauhtémoc.
Moctezuma II was indeed the emperor when Cortés arrived to Tenochtitlán, but he was overthrown by his people, beacuse he defended the Spaniards (believing their were gods).
Then Cuitláhuac ascended to the throne, but he was soon killed by the fearmost weapon the Europeans had brought: Smallpox.
After that, Cuauhtémoc was crowned tlatoani (emperor), and he still fought against the Spaniards. So technically he was the emperor defeated by Cortés, not Moctezuma (who was killed a year before the Spaniard victory).
Either name should be accepted, since both were Aztec emperors killed during the Cortes expeditions, although Cuauhte'moc was the last emperor in charge when the empire fell.
Yes, his name was Mohandas Gandhi, though I think use of his title "Mahatma" might be more common than Mohandas. But it says "often known by a single name", and that still applies.
I'd say this is a good reason for the term "American Indian" to be phased out. It's really not that descriptive, and can sometimes lead to confusion with just Indian is used. It's not about being PC, just being accurate.
''Nonviolent Indian'' and ''The Sistine Chapel'' are very vague clues. ''3-time World Cup winner'' is also vague. Agree with others to define it more accurately. Thanks
Malbaby: you missed the sarcasm. "I hear a lot of people" is a way of poking fun at Trump, who uses that phrase either to present something that the voices on Fox News or Breitbart told him or to disguise the fact that he doesn't know WTF he's talking about. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/index.html. It's like ending an email message with the word "Sad!" as Trump does.
What I appreciate about Wikipedia is that it updates its site almost before the event happens. Hours after Roger Moore's recent death, his bio on wikipedia was already updated... way before the printed media picked up on it.
which I guess makes the answer wrong, since these, more accurate, versions of his name show that he did have a a first and last name.. just mashed together and distorted
He didn't change his name. He's got a first and last name. Westerners who were not familiar with Arabic naming conventions mashed it together in to one name because they didn't understand what they were hearing. The same way small children call the former president "Barakobama"
"These historical figures are often known by a single name." It doesn't mean they didn't HAVE an additional name, just that they are frequently referred to by just the one. People much more frequently talk about Michelangelo than they do Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni.
None. He was Macedonian, like Leonidas was Spartan, Demosthenes Athenian, Archimedes Syracusian etc etc. All of these entities had greek culture and definitely did not speak slavic though xD
ah yes, Publius Aelius Hadrianus Augustus, Marcus Tullius Cicero, and Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, all people with only one name. (They're definitely /known/ by only one name, I just think it's funny that we always think of Romans as one-name people when they usually had at /least/ three, sometimes up to six or seven if they were emperors.)
It's more about what they're known as versus what their official name was. Dante's full name was Dante Alighieri but he is usually referred to as Dante
Not all contributors to Wikipedia are trolls.
But this rag on Wikipedia business is what annoys me: "meh meh meh, it's not a valid source". Stop regurgitating the rhetoric your teachers have vomited into you. anything is a valid secondary source, provided it utilises pertinent primary sources. The onus is on the individual to check those sources.
Plenty of lectures I've had have pulled the old do as i say not as i do: citing it whilst saying don't use it.
The reason they say that is because they want to encourage you to scratch a bit deeper when doing research, not take things at face value.
Plenty of professionals consult it to double check their knowledge: it's quite evident when info on there has been falsified.
"Ladies and Gentleman, Monty Zuma!" Nothing like changing an Aztec emperor from a comedian to an actual emperor.
Reflecting on this just now it occurred to me that I may have first heard of Salah ad-Din playing Genghis Khan 2 on the Nintendo Entertainment System. I remember the Mamluks being in that game. I looked it up and he appears in one scenario but I'm not sure if I played that scenario or not.
Moctezuma II was indeed the emperor when Cortés arrived to Tenochtitlán, but he was overthrown by his people, beacuse he defended the Spaniards (believing their were gods).
Then Cuitláhuac ascended to the throne, but he was soon killed by the fearmost weapon the Europeans had brought: Smallpox.
After that, Cuauhtémoc was crowned tlatoani (emperor), and he still fought against the Spaniards. So technically he was the emperor defeated by Cortés, not Moctezuma (who was killed a year before the Spaniard victory).
i will fight no more forever
did eventually get gandhi
It's like in the Satanic Verse, Saladin changing his name from Salahuddin to better appeal to western audiences.