....The only thing you did was post a wiki link (not reliable, in fact, its considered a joke)...
This is surely one way to win an argument.....by denying all the proofs and facts, the opponent is giving and regarding only your proof as the most authentic.............BUT this is not the
logical way.
You have problem with WIKI....you call it a joke....but you didn't understand on what pretext I used it.
(I would be grateful if you can provide me with a source which directly opposes what WIKI says
in this context)
Regarding authenticity......tell me where does WIKI get its information from????....Does it have its own research team????
People all over the world are updating WIKI with the latest information....and these people in turn get their information
directly from the source or from sources which
YOU think are reliable.
The fact that so many people are adding information to WIKI...proves its authenticity and neutrality.
Imagine , if one person adds anything wrong or out of context, then immediately it will catch the attention of someone or the other somewhere in the world keeping a vigilant eye.....
so there is practically no room for mistakes or fake news.
....the link for the other source you provided only summarized what some old studies from 1960's-1980's...
Again, If you had read my sources and arguments carefully..... you wouldn't have made the above statement.
The links I provided are actually
very comprehensive.....
they first summarized old studies from 1960's-80's and then refuted their claims with the help of more advanced and modern studies.
Thus, you just proved my claim, that you are replying just for the sake of it....without reading completely what i provided.
(just giving screen shots, doesn't prove that you are reading it all...... after-all it is easier than reading everything
)
So, my suggestion is....read
carefully and
completely(not just the first few lines) what we are providing in support of our arguments.....unless you do this , you will never realize where you are wrong.