One in four think Winnie didn't exist (but Sherlock Holmes did)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Challenge Churchill! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512087&in_page_id=1770)

A quarter of the population think that Winston Churchill never actually existed, a survey suggests.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/fictfactDM0302_468x423.jpg



This is why it is important to recognize that human rights are inherent and not popularly decided.

[Rolfe]

:jaw-dropp

This is even crazier than the one about how government shouldn't take responsibility for healthcare because some social security penpusher once made a mistake.

Rolfe.

[Camillus]

It's arguable that three of those on the fiction list shouldn't be there. Unless Leonardo Da Vinci dreamed her up someone sat for the painting of the Mona Lisa (perhaps even Lisa Gherardini). Lady Godiva, wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia is known from the Domesday Book and records of donations to monasteries in the 11th Century (and if those kinds of records aren't good enough what is Boudicca doing on the fact list?). There are several books about Dick Turpin, some of them written by actual historians who've done actual research.

Perhaps the fiction list should read "Some fictional people and some factual people about whom wildly inaccurate stories are told and someone who we don't know the real name of but is in a really well known painting"?

[The Don]

You could also argue that the way in which Richard the Lionheart is portrayed - the greatest ever Englishman - as opposed to a French nobleman who had very little interest in England except as a means to fund his martial ambitions - is as fictitious as Lady Godiva.

[Rob Lister]

I can understand how a 20-something y/o might think/guess Holmes might be real, especially with little or no exposure to the character.

Hell, I don't recall ever hearing of Dick Turpin.

[Darth Rotor]

This is why it is important to recognize that human rights are inherent and not popularly decided.
This is soooooooo two weeks ago. :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105543&highlight=churchill+myth

DR

[dudalb]

I wonder if Holmes being real has to do with misreading of a lot of the writing by Holmes fans (and I am definently a big time one myself) where the fiction that Holmes was a real person and Conan Doyle was just the editor of Dr. Watson's memoirs of The Great Detective is a standard technique.
And one I have used myself.
It's a sort of a huge in joke and one that might be easily misintepreted by the casual reader.

[Fitter]

This is soooooooo two weeks ago. :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105543&highlight=churchill+myth

DR
Well he's already used health care twice and that weird smoking thing he brought up. The troll is running out of things to bash the Brits over.

[fuelair]

Oh, Winnie Churchill, I was afraid someone was trying to deny the existance of Pooh!! (aka Saunders)

[gumboot]

They do these surveys all the frikken time and they always get the same results and always make a big deal about it. You'll note that the survey mentions it was mainly under 20's that got it wrong, and there was an earlier more extensive poll just of school kids with similar results.

I have my suspicions that it's actually just school kids taking the piss. Let's be honest, if you got asked to answer a poll like that in high school would you be honest?

(We got asked questions about movies and suicide when I was in high school and the entire thing was abandoned after they got answers like "Every time I watch Pulp Fiction I get this uncontrollable urge to kill myself.")

[baron]

It's arguable that three of those on the fiction list shouldn't be there. Unless Leonardo Da Vinci dreamed her up someone sat for the painting of the Mona Lisa (perhaps even Lisa Gherardini). Lady Godiva, wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia is known from the Domesday Book and records of donations to monasteries in the 11th Century (and if those kinds of records aren't good enough what is Boudicca doing on the fact list?). There are several books about Dick Turpin, some of them written by actual historians who've done actual research.

Lady Godiva is the most bizarre error, IMO. I never suspected there was any question that Lady Godiva existed, and doing a bit of research now I'm no less convinced.

And you can add King Arthur to the list of disputed "fictional" characters, bringing the total to 4 out of 10.

Perhaps this survey shows the ignorance of those who compose them and, more importantly, reminds us not to believe a damn thing they tell us.

[godless dave]

There is no real evidence of King Arthur, whereas there is documentary evidence of Lady Godiva. Putting Lady Godiva on the "fictional" list would be puzzling if it weren't the Daily Mail. The editors of the Daily Mail aren't a whole lot smarter than their readers.

[gumboot]

Lady Godiva is the most bizarre error, IMO. I never suspected there was any question that Lady Godiva existed, and doing a bit of research now I'm no less convinced.

And you can add King Arthur to the list of disputed "fictional" characters, bringing the total to 4 out of 10.

Perhaps this survey shows the ignorance of those who compose them and, more importantly, reminds us not to believe a damn thing they tell us.


Both King Arthur and Robin Hood are almost certainly based on actual historical figures, although the resemblance between the legend and the reality would be almost nil, so it's hard to say whether they count as historical or not. There is at least evidence that the historical "Arthur" was actually named "Arthur" (or some variation). "Robin Hood" derives from a generic name used to identify an outlaw, and was in use as late as the Gunpowder Plot when the conspirators were called "Robin Hoods". The tales of Robin Hood are almost certainly embellished accounts of multiple persons while the tales of King Arthur appear to have been a case of latching Celtic mythology onto a Christian historical figure in order to ensure those tales survived.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hey, it's a reverse argument to popularity!...
.... the point?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hey, it's a reverse argument to popularity!...
.... the point?

Society being nothing more than the grouping of people, why would you accept people deciding your rights?

[godless dave]

There is at least evidence that the historical "Arthur" was actually named "Arthur" (or some variation).

This is news to me. Do you have a reference? Arthurian legends are an interest of mine.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is news to me. Do you have a reference? Arthurian legends are an interest of mine.

A REAL ARTHUR? (http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/england/arch/)

Before pursuing the sites commonly attached with King Arthur's lifetime, it is important to examine exactly who the most likely historic figure is for the colossal Arthurian legend. After several decades of scholastic pursuit, only one theory has managed to name a founding individual consistent with Arthurian literature and the chronological time he would have had to occupy. This man was Riothamus, the "King of the Britons" sent by Leo I in 467 to retrieve the crumbling British Isles from Saxon invasions.

[Alt+F4]

Where have all the skeptics gone?

The study, specially commissioned by UKTV Gold, tested the nation on its historical knowledge by asking 3,000 people a series of questions relating to famous factual and fictional characters.

And guess what? It's Robin Hood Weekend on this television channel!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Society being nothing more than the grouping of people, why would you accept people deciding your rights?

That's STILL a flawed appeal to authority.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That's STILL a flawed appeal to authority.

How so? :confused:

[SezMe]

Society being nothing more than the grouping of people, why would you accept people deciding your rights?
Air being nothing more than the grouping of molecules, why would you accept that air can transmit sound?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Air being nothing more than the grouping of molecules, why would you accept that air can transmit sound?

This analogy does not work.

[gumboot]

This is news to me. Do you have a reference? Arthurian legends are an interest of mine.

It relates to an unusually high number of children of that period being named "Arthur" (or variations). This is usually a good sign that someone of great importance was alive during this time.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It relates to an unusually high number of children of that period being named "Arthur" (or variations). This is usually a good sign that someone of great importance was alive during this time.

In the same manner many are named JEROME today. ;)

[Just thinking]

I think that the Mona Lisa (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080115-AP-monalisa.html) must now be moved from Column A to Column B ... however, due to the recentness of this discovery, it might very well have been proper to place it in Column A at the time of the survey. After all, that was how it was properly presented given the evidence (or lack thereof).

[Dark Jaguar]

This analogy does not work.

I think he's saying whether they should or not isn't the point. Effectively, others do decide your rights. If you are being tortured, being intellectually convinced that you have the right not to be isn't doing you much good.

[supercorgi]

You could also argue that the way in which Richard the Lionheart is portrayed - the greatest ever Englishman - as opposed to a French nobleman who had very little interest in England except as a means to fund his martial ambitions - is as fictitious as Lady Godiva.

Not French -- Norman. Normans were essentially Vikings that conquered the area of Normandy in Norman France. Normandy, and well Acquitaine, were the source of most of the squabbles between the English and French nobility.

[uruk]

This is why it is important to recognize that human rights are inherent and not popularly decided.
Rights only exist in relation to groups of people. If you were the only human on earth, Human rights would be meaningless because there would be noone else around in which the rights would be recognized or violated.

Human rights have to do with how people behaive in relation to other people. What is allowed and not allowed. And the peopple have to agree on what those rights are. Rights are a idealistic construct which can only exist if people agree upon and recognize them.

The rights is just an idea. Nothing more. It means nothing untill people act accordingly.