Talk:2129: 1921 Fact Checker

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:53, 27 March 2019 by Jacky720 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Two gallons of vinegar, huh? 14:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

While I too respect this fact checker's perspective on what really matters (and what doesn't), it's clear to me that in this fact-obsessed 21st century we cannot let this purported fact go unverified. Get on it, people! ;) PotatoGod (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fact checked this comic. The text in question is on page 8 of the newspaper, leftmost column, three paragraphs from the bottom. Billtheplatypus (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

[citation needed] The LOC link in the explanation says that the Kansas City Sun was a Saturday Weekly, so it wouldn't have been published on Friday, May 6th, 1921 as claimed. Unfortunately, the LOC only has scans of from 1914 through 1920, so it doesn't have scans for 1921. Do you have a source where you fact checked it? Blaisepascal (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This. You can get the OCR if you don't want to sign up. 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Off topic, but oldnewspapers are interesting. Especially the notices and lawsuit notifications, it's interesting to see that the newspaper notifications was considered enough notice that a judgement could be rendered. 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This is still the case. For certain types of civil actions where the respondent's address is unknown and personal service is otherwise unavailable, notice through newspaper publication is sufficient. Larger cities in the US even have specialist legal newspapers that are primarily funded by payments for publishing these and other public notices.
I think the explanation needs to clarify the dates here. There appear to be two different Kansas City Suns, one in Kansas, the other in Missouri. The Missouri one was a published from 1908-1924 and targeted the black community. The Kansas one was published at least from 1892 to 1924, and possibly longer (digitized issues up to 1924 are available online, which is also about when things start being still under copyright. Coincidence?). This fact check is in the Kansas paper. Blaisepascal (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't "whatever" be not worth checking? "Mostly whatever" implies it could be worth checking but beyond current enthusiasm. -- 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought corn travelling back from England to America was the problem... 16:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

By 1620 there should've been plenty of time to establish some growing of maize in England. I don't know the real truth, but it's plausible. -- 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Historically, "corn" was a general term for grain, usually the local grain. It also referred to things which where grain-sized, like the large grains of salt used to make "corned beef" or hard warts on the feet. It was only in North America where the predominant local grain was maize that "corn" came to have the narrower meaning of maize. If there really was a requirement to bring a supply of "cornmeal" in the early 1600's from England to the Americas, I'd expect it to be ground wheat, barleycorn, or rye, not maize. Blaisepascal (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It's there any more information/sources on this? I find this interesting. 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Source: wiktionary, google's dictionary, and presumably any other English dictionary you might prefer. Zmatt (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Blaisepascal is arguing that the article (or incomplete template) was, in fact, created by a BOT. Before starting an edit war, can I check the consensus on what we do with the created by? I always use the [relevant item]. That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 19:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)