Quote Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80
Wait, Elmet, are you seriously using Wikipedia as proof for anything?! come on... wikipedia?! talkabout non-academic. if wikipedia tends to have anything right it is only by chance, not essence. for instance, if i looked at their Proto-Germanic entry I would get pissed off really quick because it's outdated information and it's simply not correct even in the context of old information. don't believe me? it's very apparent after consulting free online materials such as Fick, Falk, Torp- part of the problem is the generalization aspect of wikipedia in relation to a concept that encompasses a longer timeline than can be generalized.
Bitzkrieg80 do you have any idea what you have just said there? If Wikipedia has anything correct then it is only by chance? Hmm not quite sure you are correct there, Wikipedia has a policy where references are needed to back up submitted data, therefore if you disagree with the articles submitted then go and find a reference or two which proves it wrong and visit the discussion page with your issue. You are generalising Wikipedia on your oppinion of one article. I detest people who attempt to downgrade Wikipedia, thankfully for you, you did not use the fact that it can be edited by anyone as part of your argument. That would have made me laugh.