I want to 'get into' history but am uncertain where I should start. Wikipedia is the most readily available option to me, but I've heard that it is not so reliable. Is this true, and if so, where else can I go? Is there a better option?
using wikipedia
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Read the folllowimg articles
History
Historical method
Historiography
List of time periods
History of the world
History of human thought
Write down the names of the important historians and books, then you can dive into noches that interest you
dont get into "history", get into specific niche pieces of "history" and intensely research them and read specific niche sources
how can you be interested in something so vague and broad
Not OP,
how do I get into the Byzantine Empire niche?
Go to the Wikipedia articles on the Byzantine Empire. Check the *citations.* Wikipedia runs on citations and they generally have to cite everything they claim in these historical articles. Many of these citations will be *books.* Download those books and read them. Z-Library can still be accessed through Tor, if you have the drive, and you can borrow books in the Internet Archive like a real library.
Read the Byzantine empire wiki article, you can also request books from the book thread
Find a good, comprehensive world history textbook if you don’t know what you’re specifically interested in yet
Wikipedia is generally ok for 'big' topics or overview pages, it's when you get into niche subjects that you find obsessive schizos peddling crackpot theories
What might be worth doing is emailing university professors who specialise in the subjects you're interested in and asking them for their class reading lists
>I want to 'get into' history but am uncertain where I should start
Unironically watch youtube videos
History is Shit Tier so Wiki is Perfect for You
schizo
Wikipedia is fine. It's not 2007 anymore. Most articles on mainstream subjects are written by actual experts with lengthy references and any malicious changes are detected and reversed almost instantly.
Pleb, wikipedia is heavily biased t'word a specific narrative. If you insist on reading Wikipedia you need to harden your mind to seek facts. Half of all Wikipedia articles are opinions.
Primary sources nagger
What specific narrative is that?
>just read primary sources with no background or overview or context, you definitely won't be confused and lose interest immediately
It depends on the article but mostly it's biased left. Favoring nurture vs nature. Favoring relativism and subjectivity vs objective reality. With the added bonus of whatever political quagmire has seeped into academia and subsequently wiki fags faux-political article moderation, again usually left leaning. It's obvious if you're not a relativist.
>Who are you quoting homosexual
If you get bored with primary sources your failures are your own. I'd much rather read the diary of some Egyptian bum and grain reserve accounting than have some homosexual historian spin a yarn about why they think there was a famine with absolutely no reason other than their interpretation of the same damn primary sources I'm reading
>looking to get into history? Read a completely deadpan account of grain accountancy
And people wonder why the subject is dying.
If you don't find those things of interest as a part of a larger whole then it's your own fault. It sounds like you're more into historic fiction, which is ironically why history is actually dying. I suggest you embrace that instead of shitting up the field. If you need some professional student to interpret history for you because it's not juicy enough you are the problem
>the subject is dying because people are reading actually fun and interesting things instead of hyper niche trivia
OK dude, you're such a brilliant historian and everyone is impressed.
I'm just responding to you. I don't care if you have fun reading historical fanfics other nerds write
Yes by definition primary sources are less biased because they are several layers of interpretation closer to the source. If some professor wrote a monograph (authentically) you can be sure it's his intent and his writing at that point in time. All it takes for bias to exist is interpretation of data. Objectively the less interpretation of data I equals less bias. That's how reality works. Problem, brainlet?
Wikipedia is good as a starting point for getting general knowledge on a subject, but there are many modern books on history exploring it in fun and interesting prose. Find your love and spread out from there, don't be scared to delve into new topics. Also as another anon mentioned, historytubers are actually perfect for beginners to the subject because they mostly do their own research far past the Wikipedia level and present it in a bite-sized package. The Cold War channel is a good example of this and I highly recommend him.
Hi Mr. Retard,
EVERY source has bias. If every primary source was perfectly accurate, then we wouldn't need to examine and cross reference multiple primaries in a secondary or tertiary source to analyze what might have actually happened. Sounds like you're seething that modern textbooks and online sources curated from different sources (e.g. Wikipedia) that try to adhere to modern professional standards and minimize bias like no other time in history point to a historical reality that disagrees with your own fantasies. Hence, please kill yourself and avoid murdering the field to newcomers.
>wikipedia is heavily biased t'word a specific narrative.
And a monograph written by some professor is less biased towards a specific narrative? Take your meds.
Primary sources, also famous for their lack of bias.
This is what I do
>read a piece of information such as:
>The X culture was related to Y culture.[3]
>go to citations, access citation number 3 if it's an article or download it if it's a book
>ctrl+f for specific parts stating the same as the Wikipedia page
Most of the time the article says the same as the source. Some times it's distorted or misinterpreted and no one bothered to check if it's accurate before. It's your duty to correct it if you find something wrong
And please do focus in one subject as other anons have said. Search for articles and books on goggle scholar, NCBI, JSTOR, Nature, whatever. Just don't treat history like a belief system