Hans Adler truth and or verifiability Let s talk about truth and or verifiability You had corrected the name Stadtzeitung we have in note 4 of this article into Stattzeitung because only the latter was verifiable you said Then by chance somebody found out the link to the Stadtzeitung f r Freiburg and the erroneous correction could be reverted Notice that if there had been no documentation of the Stadtzeitung f r Freiburg online but only say in a press archive in Freiburg or if nobody had made the effort to verify the verifiability the error would not have been detected and the truth would now be erroneously Stattzeitung A beautiful mistake by the way very evangelical being of the same sort as those we can find in the manuscripts of the Gospel But let us apply this to another case take Anton van Hooff who is in charge to turn King s evidence for pseudo science severe methodological flaws and factual errors Of course he has written this among several name callings so this is verifiable But can we take it seriously If we look closer we see that the first accusation of van Hooff towards Carotta was to not have taken into account the well known Tacitus passage about Nero and the christians But since Carotta had treated it in detail van Hooff was exposed because he had shown that he had attacked a book without having read it so that he himself was convicted of the severe methodological flaws and factual errors he tried to impute to other people The subsequent escalation with the accusation of pseudo science was only his embarrassing attempt to divert from the lack of professionality he had shown This too can be verified The question is then Which verification is relevant Van Hooff is refered to as a Senior lecturer of Ancient History and Teacher Trainer for Classics at Nijmegen University the Netherlands in the link given in note 17 But we see that at the University of Sofia he is also called Professor Associate Looking on the Internet we can verify that he is called a professor on several websites Looking closer we can also verify that he was never a professor and is by now a teacher in a secondary school as he himself stated in a newspaper article So what have we truly verified That he is a confidence trickster who let himself be called a professor without actually being one in order to improve his authority as an alleged important scholar If we look to the list of publications he is giving there we see that he is speaking of numerous books and articles but specifies only one title Modesty or showing off Van Hooff being a notorious polemicist can his accusations be taken seriously Nobody does it in The Netherlands why is there no article about him in the Dutch WP The only Antoon van Hooff listed there is a zoo director who was ashamed of the homonymy but he is taken seriously here in the English WP where most judges do not even understand Dutch Why Because it is so stated in the German WP already If we take a look at the history there we can verify that somebody had first put the article in the category Pseudowissenschaft pseudo science but then this being not allowed because libelous they discovered Van Hooff taking him as proof without examining his credibility happy to have the possibility to maintain their libelous allegation in an appearance of legality it is only a quotation So much about verifiability and truth The question of Pilate BTW