Concrete Shipbuilding – Argentina
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 1 month ago
thecretefleet.comOtherstory
calmneutral
Debate
0/100
ShipbuildingConcrete ConstructionArgentina
Key topics
Shipbuilding
Concrete Construction
Argentina
The post discusses the history or practice of concrete shipbuilding in Argentina, with a link provided for further information.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
6d
Peak period
5
Day 6
Avg / period
3
Comment distribution6 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 6 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 16, 2025 at 11:11 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM EST
6d after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in Day 6
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 29, 2025 at 5:03 AM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45950797Type: storyLast synced: 11/23/2025, 12:07:04 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> I tried to correct the nonsense written on the appalling Wikipedia page 'Concrete Ship', only to find myself 'Indefinitely Blocked' from updating Wikipedia. Their grounds were that by citing referenceable facts from this website, I was 'self-promoting' apparently. Self promoting history ? History that has been meticulously researched and is completely free to access ? I then had the audacity to argue with one of the tinpot dictators that run Wikipedia such that I was banned from 'Talk' as well. Closed minds, fake history. This is only important because when you research anything, Wikipedia comes out top. The text then gets repeated ad nauseam. That's the problem...the nonsense on Wikipedia is extrapolated and propagated many times over. For everyone that reads this, a hundred will read Wikipedia and attach what is written to their photo or video. This fact alone means that there is a responsibility on Wikipedia - one that they take extremely lightly - to ensure that statements have adequate and reputable citations. Wikipedia is not a source, Wikipedia is never a source
Pretty strong sentiments - anyone else have this sort of experience? Bit of a bunker buster if the assertions within hold weight...
edit: found the talk page referenced [0]. It's popcorn-worthy at least.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concrete_ship#Nonsense_hi...
I agree, verifiability makes sense, and truth can’t really be claimed without verification, and so it’s a confusing argument to say: truth should be above verifiability; but I must admit: I find it very strange that some people have information about them on their Wikipedia pages that they’re not able to correct despite _being the person_ because one can only cite a source.
The problem of circular citations exists as well, where an article is cited which itself only cites another article, and it might loop back on itself.
0 - https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/verifiability-truth-john-sir...
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Lorenzo
The dude wanted to cite himself, cmon
14 more comments available on Hacker News