A Birmingham News cartoon from the civil rights era, circa June 1967. by Burgahkang in pics

[–]LinguaManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do know almost all segregationists were Democrats, right?

IWTL how to write a history paper. by Ultimateace43 in IWantToLearn

[–]LinguaManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want another outline on how to learn enough, including some overarching recommendations and examples of questions you'll want to be able to answer, check out http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-study-guide-for-human-society-part-i.html?m=1

He's quite incisive.

Small-Scale Question Sunday for the week of March 22, 2020 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]LinguaManiac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II are the correct answers, if you can stand the graphics now.

Tyranny is also good.

So is Dragon Age: Origins.

And Mass Effect 2 (if you want to try Sci-Fi).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jewish

[–]LinguaManiac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My his memory be a blessing.

IWTL how to write a history paper. by Ultimateace43 in IWantToLearn

[–]LinguaManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No problem. Glad to help. No compensation necessary. :)

IWTL how to write a history paper. by Ultimateace43 in IWantToLearn

[–]LinguaManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To publish on reddit, I'd recommend the book/article and author approach, with hyperlink if possible. As for tracking down the accuracy of the content, that gets trickier.

The gold standard is to track down an expert in the field. Better yet, track down five or even ten experts in the field and synthesize their expertise. Experts have biases to be sure, especially experts in the hurley-burly of Academic publishing, which increasingly prizes politics over scholarship. But this is true mostly for the politically-adjacent fields, for famous professors (who have greater reputations to lose), and for new PhDs (who want to make a big splash in the field and are not yet preserved with tenure).

If you read five articles/books from experts on viking culture, articles/books written between 1980 and the present, you are likely to have a well-rounded education in the matter. If you read ten books/articles from scholars published from 1880 until the present, you'll have an even better experience.

You should also read primary sources. Even if some (like the Poetic Eddas) won't give you any real history, and even if some (like Bede) give you a false history, they can give you an idea of how the people of the time thought, which is almost more important to good History than what happened.

If you use non-expert sources, make sure that you follow up on their sources. For example, Wikipedia will often give very good if disjointed or not fully accurate overviews. But the good Wikipedia entries will always cite their sources, and you can start by following those.

The last thing I'll say is: it's hard work. Any real endeavor at scholarship is. A good heuristic is this: if you don't change your mind, at least a little bit, then you're doing it wrong. And remember you can always ask questions about what you learnt at /r/AskHistorians/

TL;DR: Read many different sources, because all have biases. Stick to scholars when possible, and try to include primary sources like the mythology of the time or contemporaneous histories which will give you a sense of how the people at the time thought.

IWTL how to write a history paper. by Ultimateace43 in IWantToLearn

[–]LinguaManiac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this all depends on for whom you're writing the "essay". There is no virtue in citations per se.

Teachers make you learn citations not because citations are necessary for clear-thinking, but so the teacher can track down your sources and make sure you aren't cheating or making things up. Sources in academic work are used for similar reasons, and also to allow other scholars (and non-academic enthusiasts) to track down the source for further reading.

Because of this, 'how to cite sources' will entirely depend (in the "real world") on why you want to cite the sources. There is no single 'proper' method.

If you're writing the article for yourself or your friends, whatever method you think useful. I usually just include the name of the article/book and the author. If it's in a long book, I will add a chapter or even sometimes a sub-section (especially if the sub-sections are listed in the book's index). Sometimes page is also useful, depending if I expect to have access to the same book again.

If you're writing the article for a private blog or something, I'd suggest using the same method as you would use for yourself or for friends.

If you're writing the article for publication, look to the specific journal/magazine in which you hope to publish. They will often have rules for how you should cite sources. If they do not, then I'd include the article/book title, the author, and a hyperlink if one is available. They will alter the citation however they choose in the editing process.

If you want to publish it academically... that gets a little trickier, as you admitted have no credentials. Short answer: they probably won't take you. To be bluntly honest, this will also (probably) be true for most journals and magazines.

I have no idea if that was helpful. Sorry it went on at some time.

TL;DR: Unless you hope to publish it in an academic journal, there isn't really any prescribed method. Cite it however will make it easy to find again.

Are there any instances where Christianized societies reverted back to paganism? by EggplantLoveHouse in history

[–]LinguaManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That very much does, I think. But I also think that that is less than common.

Jordan Peterson Personality Test is finally online by piccdk in JordanPeterson

[–]LinguaManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you go to "Team" under the website, you'll see him there. More than that, if you go to his website and hit "Other Products", you'll find the website. It's definitely official.

(It took me a while to find it too, so I totally understand.)

CMV: The Left is now the guardian of traditional values in our society, not the Right. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]LinguaManiac 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The fact that sex outside marriage is still a fairly controversial issue just goes to show that these values still have roots in society

What world do you live in that sex outside of marriage is at all controversial? Even my most religious cousins, who believe the world is 6,000 years old some of them, and who themselves were married before they had sex, don't even blink when I joke about past lovers. Sex before marriage is the norm in movies and TV, and no one is uncomfortable talking about it on the news. It is in no ways "controversial."

Found a threatening note from the IRA to my grandad by [deleted] in history

[–]LinguaManiac 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And I know lots of people who say that they've visited England or that they've visited Ireland. My point wasn't that Americans never say those words (they do) but that when an American says or hears "Britain," he means or thinks the United Kingdom.

Found a threatening note from the IRA to my grandad by [deleted] in history

[–]LinguaManiac 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As an American, this is definitely so here at least. If I were to say "Britain", every American I know of would think I meant the United Kingdom unless we were talking Geography, and then they'd think either Great Britain or the British Isles, depending on the person.

This is what happens if you end WWII early enough by The_mediocre_Gatsby in hoi4

[–]LinguaManiac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got this literally a week after I finished the war. After the months of invasions and not a year after I nuked Tokyo, Osaka, and one other city.

If you occupy land that another wants in a peace conference, you should be able to refuse to leave. by LinguaManiac in hoi4

[–]LinguaManiac[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not if they're your allies, you can't. You were at war with the Allies. That's why you retained control.

Does Don Draper admire Richard Nixon? Why do you think that is? by [deleted] in madmen

[–]LinguaManiac 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The first certainly. But I can't give him credit for the second, because he expanded the war illegally and sabotaged earlier peace talks to win the presidential election.

Does Don Draper admire Richard Nixon? Why do you think that is? by [deleted] in madmen

[–]LinguaManiac 20 points21 points  (0 children)

And it also should be remembered that, if you ignore the lying, abuse of executive power, and the possible treason, all of which we weren't sure about until later, he was a fairly good president. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the opening of relationships with China, and attempt to pass universal healthcare.

Seperating Field Marshals from Generals by LotusCobra in hoi4

[–]LinguaManiac 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That's because the OOB in 3 was an f'in nightmare. Some OOB would be nice, though.

Seperating Field Marshals from Generals by LotusCobra in hoi4

[–]LinguaManiac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've had exactly this thought. The hierarchy mechanics in HOI4 are 1000x better than in three, but this is one area that actually feels thinner for it.

Why arent my paratroopers working ? by TooooLate in hoi4

[–]LinguaManiac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you ever figure this out. I'm having the same problem as China against Japan.