4 ms·

I believe you care correct about Luddendorf. That was the narrative outlined in 1924: The Year That Made Hitler, if Peter Ross Range is to be believed.

erikb 10y ago
Don't believe secondary source A more because you've found secondary source B agreeing with it. To really validate a statement you need to figure out source A's primary source, e.g. a police report of the event. Then compare it to primary source of B. You may end up seeing that both A and B are actually referring to an unchecked secondary source themselves, maybe even the same.
- bebopfunk 10y ago
  A valid point if I was working on any academic research. Or if the history carried any relevancy beyond a curiosity. I understand the concern with secondary source, however that was specifically why I added a disclaimer stating "if that author is to believed", or something to that effect. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to explain your concern as it may help others.
  - erikb 10y ago
    Well, nobody asks you to write scientific papers if you don't want to. However, don't believe the story about Luddendorf is correct, just because you've read it in another secondary source. The level of doubt about the first mention should stay exactly the same as long as nobody has done some background checking.
    - bebopfunk 9y ago
      They could both be citing different primary sources, did you ever stop to consider that? Or were you busy stuffing that strawman? Let me know when you've checked the primary source on both. Then I'll listen to your pedanticism. Until then you're being just as speculative as I am. Except, I at least cited a source and provided a disclaimer for the information I posted.
      - erikb 9y ago
        A) Yeah, they could have, true. I also could become a billionaire tomorrow at 10:31 am. But the probability is so close towards 0% that it's much smarter to not assume it. B) Strawmans are awesome. Don't dare to criticise my strawman. I'm an artist! C) Yes, adding more reading material is always nice, and none of my comments was supposed to discredit that. Thanks for adding it. D) Still, don't increase your hopes because you've read another secondary source.

erikb 10y ago

Don't believe secondary source A more because you've found secondary source B agreeing with it. To really validate a statement you need to figure out source A's primary source, e.g. a police report of the event. Then compare it to primary source of B. You may end up seeing that both A and B are actually referring to an unchecked secondary source themselves, maybe even the same.

bebopfunk 10y ago
A valid point if I was working on any academic research. Or if the history carried any relevancy beyond a curiosity. I understand the concern with secondary source, however that was specifically why I added a disclaimer stating "if that author is to believed", or something to that effect. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to explain your concern as it may help others.
- erikb 10y ago
  Well, nobody asks you to write scientific papers if you don't want to. However, don't believe the story about Luddendorf is correct, just because you've read it in another secondary source. The level of doubt about the first mention should stay exactly the same as long as nobody has done some background checking.
  - bebopfunk 9y ago
    They could both be citing different primary sources, did you ever stop to consider that? Or were you busy stuffing that strawman? Let me know when you've checked the primary source on both. Then I'll listen to your pedanticism. Until then you're being just as speculative as I am. Except, I at least cited a source and provided a disclaimer for the information I posted.
    - erikb 9y ago
      A) Yeah, they could have, true. I also could become a billionaire tomorrow at 10:31 am. But the probability is so close towards 0% that it's much smarter to not assume it. B) Strawmans are awesome. Don't dare to criticise my strawman. I'm an artist! C) Yes, adding more reading material is always nice, and none of my comments was supposed to discredit that. Thanks for adding it. D) Still, don't increase your hopes because you've read another secondary source.