Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Can we trust history books and articles?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    23 Hours Ago @ 10:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Religion
    Hitlerism
    Posts
    339
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    70
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    104
    Thanked in
    75 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skärmträl View Post
    If they always referred to primary sources, each Wikipedia article would in itself be original research, and I doubt that was ever the point of Wikipedia. Summaries of historical research is very useful and a Wikipedia article can, in this way, be likened to a scientific review. That makes them more objective than any original research.
    Wikipedia can never be objective and encyclopedias will always be outdated. The point of Wikipedia was to remain up to date, but if it wants to be considered accurate, it should be encouraging primary/secondary sources. Not everyone bothers scrolling down through the listed sources or checking the sources. Half of the time, those sources will be locked behind subscription (newspapers, scribd, questia), on a borrowed schedule (archive.org), a google books/amazon preview, or simply unavailable online. I've collected over 500 pdfs in my lifetime, it was no easy task. I doubt normal people would even have the time or motivation to build a personal library on their desktop.

    For instance, the Rienzi experience is disputed mainly on the obscure research of a scholar named Jonas Karlsson, who published his findings in the July 2012 issue of Wagner Journal, which of course, is inaccessible to most people unless they purchase it. Yet almost every recent book on this subject refers to it. We are simply told that there were only 5 performances of Rienzi at Linz and that Hitler could not have attended any of them with Kubizek.

    Quote Originally Posted by schwab View Post
    I use the old KJV in English and the Luther translation in German.

    I also like the Latin translation of the Catholic church. I had 4 years of mandatory Latin in College.
    According to the KJV, killing is not permitted ("thou shalt not kill") and god's people must suffer pest species, parasites, and predators, such as moths, rodents, serpents, wasp nests, etc. It is pacifism taken to it's logical extreme, the whole planet would be unsustainable and the laws of nature would be neutralized.

    The newer translations are no devil's work. They often provide historical context and mention omissions, clarify on certain phrases, etc. You'd be hard-pressed to find a new translation which lacks any one of these improvements.

    Goethe found Luther's translation to be unsatisfactory, particularly John 1:1-3. Schopenhauer pointed out how the Septuagint proved to be more reliable than Luther's translation. The Septuagint probably neutralizes half of the Christian "prophecies", as well as the attempts to link up the "Satan" of Christianity with Lucifer, the serpent of Eden, the book of Job's Satan, etc.

    Latin should no longer generally be taught in schools. It's only suited for qualified writers and philologists. The argument that a dead language only remains dead as long as there's no interest in it (usually raised by pagans, but sometimes by Christians) is unsatisfactory. Rome is dead, it's time is over. The dissolution of the British empire made that clear.

    American imperialism stands for nothing great, it's not modeled after Rome in the slightest.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Terminus For This Useful Post:


  3. #12
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,592
    Thanked in
    1,392 Posts
    Wikipedia can never be objective and encyclopedias will always be outdated. The point of Wikipedia was to remain up to date, but if it wants to be considered accurate, it should be encouraging primary/secondary sources.
    I once made a contribution to Wiki

    I was arguing with someone on here about the Dresden death toll and they quoted the 18.000 to 20.000 estimate that was on Wikipedia at that time. To them, this was historically accurate because Wiki was a 'reputable source', and when I mentioned David Irving's figures he was dismissed as a mere 'author' rather than a historian (again, due to Wiki).

    Anyway, I put zeroes on the end of the Dresden numbers and I reinstated Irving as a historian, which for a few hours made these things *facts* until the next update came along. It was forum member Heinrich Harrer who told me how to do it but the important thing is that anyone can write more or less anything and - correct me if I'm wrong - I believe that Wikipedia is no longer recognised as a valid academic source in University exams.

    I haven't contributed to Wikipedia since but I do sometimes use it to obtain information that cannot serve a political agenda.

  4. #13
    Senior Member Ravenrune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 04:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon-Celt
    Ancestry
    Irish, English, Scottish, German, French, Mi'kmaq
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    maker of things
    Politics
    non-corruption for the people
    Religion
    Pantheism / Norse pagan / Taoism
    Posts
    540
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    78
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    591
    Thanked in
    297 Posts
    Some quick , easy to find news articles regarding this subject.

    These are just a couple really mainstream stories about Zionist and Israel interest groups being trained (and likely paid too) to edit sensitive and important information.


    Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups



    The Right's Latest Weapon: 'Zionist Editing' on Wikipedia
    (meaning the "right" in Israel)

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5101511


    And don't forget about the FBI and CIA (and NSA ... but we probably don't know about their secret bunker od editors who cover their tracks better LOL)

    CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...42896020070816


    I'm sure there are other interest groups in other languages doing the same ( China likely has paid and trained editors constantly editing pages about Taiwan. Russia likely has paid editors concerned with limiting negative history, etc)


    -------------------------------

    Information is indeed the most powerful weapon. If masses of people can be made to think a certain thing, they can be rallied to support that! The mainstream always points to "Nazi" Germany regarding that (and never looking at the background problems and history and certainly never looking at our own society which has been lead around by the nose with information from school, books, TV, movies endlessly to think we are "the good guys").


    Of course there are bound to be interest groups 'conspiring' (oops there's that word they keep wanting to label any non-mainstream thought as "obviously ridiculous with) to make certain history and political information fall in line with a specific narrative. It's always been this way before the internet, even before the printing press (which was a huge information explosion)

    You can probably tell which subjects have the most weight politically by seeing how often they are edited in the edit history. Some of these things are edited endlessly like some kind of information war LOL.

    -------------

    I'd say, anything unimportant politically, culturally or historically is probably as trustworthy as anything. However, on subjects of great importance , there are very strong groups who want to keep people thinking "the correct thing". However, published books are like this too. They aren't going to be edited by countless people, but the status quo can hide them and support mainstream ones or ban them on Amazon (an electronic book burning in a way).

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Ravenrune For This Useful Post:


  6. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    4 Days Ago @ 12:49 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of Creator God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    839
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    768
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,003
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    You made my point not trusting Wikipedia
    I'm a vet of the Algerian war. I noticed many errors of that war on Wiki............

  7. #15
    Senior Member Skärmträl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 12:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Gender
    Posts
    141
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    80 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Terminus View Post
    Wikipedia can never be objective [...] if it wants to be considered accurate, it should be encouraging primary/secondary sources.
    It seems that the only way to be objective about anything is to have as many different subjects as possible analyze the nature of an object. Instead of providing one opinion (original research) on primary sources, Wikipedia summarizes several opinions. More subjects equals more objectivity. This lacks accuracy, yes, which is always what happens when we make averages of several opinions, even in scientific reviews.

    In short, I think a Wikipedia article generally tries to answer the question, "How does the scientific community currently view subject x?" How well Wikipedia authors manage to do this is debatable, but you will by definition get a more objective answer from your average Wikipedia article than from an article based on primary sources.

  8. #16
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,592
    Thanked in
    1,392 Posts
    I'm a vet of the Algerian war. I noticed many errors of that war on Wiki............
    Give us some examples then, schwab.

    Genuine reason for asking - I'm interested in French history but this is one of my blind spots.

  9. #17
    Munchkin
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    LillyCaterina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/Irish/French
    Ancestry
    England/Ireland/France
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Deli Shift Leader/Manager
    Politics
    Centrist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,597
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    890
    Thanked in
    474 Posts
    Aside from Scripture, I find more than one source of information about a serious matter. I then make a logical conclusion based on the information I gathered from these various sources.

    I only use Wiki for basic stuff.
    Not all in life is at it appears to be.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to LillyCaterina For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Ancient Kelefeld Battlefield Changes History Books
    By Storm Saxon in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Monday, December 12th, 2011, 09:20 PM
  2. Best German History Books in English?
    By Fredericus Rex in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Monday, June 6th, 2011, 07:34 AM
  3. Websites, Articles, Books on the Existence of Race
    By Ahura Mazda in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 07:32 AM
  4. What Are Your Favourite History Books ?
    By Siegfried in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 31st, 2007, 11:22 PM
  5. e-book: Saxo Grammaticus, The Danish History, Books I-IX
    By Vanir in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, July 7th, 2005, 10:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •