Talk:List of dubious historical resources
From Academic Kids
Given the fact that Herodotus has been justified by archaeological evidence, why hasn't he been deleted from this list? Instead, I'd add the whole indo-european thing, because its theorists have NEVER shown us a single archaeological find to prove their sayings.
Please feel free to add to this collection... sjc
- WHAT a nice idea, Steve. I've already added one. I hope you've linked it to the history homepage! --MichaelTinkler
Yes, it was on my list, and also to the History standards page. sjc
"Dubious historical resources": Speaking as a layperson here ... Almost anything related to King Arthur. Almost anything related to history of Asian martial arts; ninja, Shaolin Temple, etc., etc.
Yes, I think that probably goes without saying. But some of the Arthurian stuff, for example, if handled correctly can be very revealing of the mores of the times as "unwitting testimony" e.g. Gawain and the Green Knight says quite a lot about mediaeval attitudes towards sin and guilt. What I think we're really trying to get at here, though, is the stuff which some historians tend to cite without comment and which (usually) is purported to be primary source material but is usually (at best) second hand, i.e. stuff masqueraded as authoratitive which isn't. sjc
tacitus! why didn't I think of that, since we kept writing and rewriting qualifiers on every use of him! --MichaelTinkler
Isn't this a matter of opinion? It really has no purpose in an encyclopedia --- those works mentioned here seem to have an ideological motive behind them. No writing, especially ancient, can be taken without a critical outlook. -- AnonUser
Hi, AnonUser, I think what we're really flagging up here is op.cits. which we need to look at very carefully when we see them in use as a justification. Of course, most historians are deeply cynical (kind of goes with the territory), and, furthermore, some have their own agendas (I have a few of my own). It is really a question of scale, and the purpose of the article here is to alert the reader to particularly contentious resources. I also envisage that we can use it as a kind of meta-article in its own right to discuss and frame particular responses to particular problems. I would also add that contemporary writing, as much, if not more, than ancient writing, should also be carefully scrutinised. sjc
- I agree with Mr. Callaway. One of the challenges I regularly encounter both here and when teaching is that few non-historians have ever been taught to look at historical sources critically, nor to use other sources (literature, art, etc.) as historical documents. I think this page could end up being a very important section of Historiography -- but I also like it being here as a reference page...JHK
- Maybe this list needs sub-categorization -- right now, some items lack explanation, and there are different reasons to suspect a source (some of these are already in the article):
- The work is an outright forgery: the Hitler Diaries, for example, or the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, which is so ridiculous that some think it was originally intended as a joke.
- The work was not written as "history". The Old Testament, though it contains some historical truth, is primarily written as a Jewish religious text; it aims, in part, to explain the Jews' relation with their God, not to record events dispassionately. The New Testament was written to preach the message of Jesus, and while it too contains some corroborated historical truth, its facts are not very reliable.
- The work is poorly-researched. Herodotus researched some of his history from dockside barroom tales, which method is worthless unless one is collecting, say, a history of the stories told by drunken Mediterranean sailors.
- The work has a stated didactic aim. Livy wanted to teach about, and bring back, the old Roman morals -- as he saw them, at least. Tacitus wanted to bewail the decline of the Republic. (Actually I'd question the inclusion of Tacitus on this list: while he's often polemical in tone, and his Germania is somewhat doubtful, he's agreed to be among the finest of Roman historians. I'm going to remove him for now, unless someone has a good explanation of why he should be here.)
- The work is written as autobiography/history. Julius Caesar's historical works started life as tracts designed to advance his political career. (Despite that, they're not all that bad as historical sources.) Augustus wrote the Res Gestae Divi Augusti to portray himself as the savior of the Republic. Human beings aren't renowned for being objective about themselves; go watch Rashomon.
- Any other reasons?
- I think this kind of categorization, and a deeper explanation of the reasons for including whatever is included, would alleviate the complaints about the article. Right now it does seem biased and agenda-driven, as the vote for deletion below suggests. --Mirv 04:51, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- How about we move this to meta? It would be far more on-topic (& less controversial) there. In any case, I would regret it were this piece of Wikipedia history to be lost. -- llywrch 01:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Question: How does one nominate texts for this page? Just hitting the edit button without some discussion seems a little extreme given the serious nature of the article. Personally I'd like to see Steven Blush's American Hardcore listed here for its shameful misrepresentation of the American underground scene.
| Contents |
Vote for deletion
I vote for deletion. Title is inherently biased, topic isn't encyclopedic, content is weird. Martin 10:47, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Martin. Couldn't anything that's useful here be included in forgery? Non-historians are often surprised how much unintentional but genuine cultural history can be gleaned from the zaniest extravagances of hagiography, for an example. Wikipedia can't teach folks how to read between the lines... Wetman 01:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. I feel that this page is very useful, though not nec. encyclopedia material. As a meta-type page it would be a superb resource though--something you could point to as a kind of "watch what you cite" warning. It does need to be beefed up some more with specific complaints and examples. I agree that deliberately false history and forged documents should seperate articles. For biased, wrong, or even propagandist work one article should be fine.
- I do think that once specific texts have been cited here they should be given an article of their own (a real wikipedia article, not a meta-makebelieve article) with a summary of the text and any problems with it.
- I would vote for moving this page into the wikipedia namespace (somewhere) and linking it into the network of "where to get information" pages. --Andrew 06:36, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Numbers in History
There doesn't seem to be a discussion about numbers in history. While most historians have a decent grasp of "before" and "after", many earlier historians have a less solid hold on the numbers. (Both deliberate and/or accidental misrepresentation.) For example, Arrian's claim that Darius had 1 million troops at Gaugamela. Or any of the unbelievable numbers put forth about the Mongol invasions. -Vina 20:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why is the Koran included in the list?
There is hardly any history in the book. Why not include the scriptures of dubious new religious movements in this article? Andries 20:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to add them. The context here is that these are texts purporting to report (some) history, but do not report all relevant facts or only report one side in a very narrow fashion. History in the Quran, as I understand it, consists of anecdotes of the life of Mohammad, and is rather one sided. Books of the new religious movements tend not to have history in it, again, as far as I know. If they do, they certainly qualify as a dubious historical resource. -Vina 19:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dubious
To classify an accepted forgery like Hitler's diaries as 'dubious' is complete nonsense. Dubious means giving rise to doubt.
I never thought I'd see Herodotus, Holy blood/Holy grail and Hitler's diaries classed together in one category... [....]. Prater 11:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) (This post has been edited. Prater 13:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Prater, I am open to persuasion about Herodotus and your other points, but if you persist in presenting your views in this disruptive way I will report you for vandalism. PatGallacher 12:16, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
- Prater made a valid edit to my mind. Perhaps if someone listed some examples of non-dubious historical sources I might be able to understand the utility of this article. I have a feeling though that all historical sources could have one or more of the criticisms outlined above applied to them. adamsan 22:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thx Adamsan, that's more or less the point I was trying to make. 'Credulity ill becomes the historian', in other words, he or she habitually treats all his sources as somewhat dubious, as far as their accuracy is concerned. The other thing is that the article conflates dubious accuracy and dubious authenticity, which I think are two separate matters. I have no real suggestions on how to improve this article, but I think an article purely about historical forgeries could turn out quite interesting. Prater 13:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pseudohistory?
This is precisely the problem with this page. Some of the sources on it are fairly widely agreed to be pseudohistory; but not Herodotus or Plutarch (who is one of the people to claim Herodotus was) or the AS chronicle. This is the wrong category. Septentrionalis 01:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
