Good vs. Bad Sources

One good historical website that I found is http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005158. This website is very good for Holocaust studies. A bad historical website would be http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm. This website has false information about WWII and Hitler’s religious beliefs.

The first website is very informative and is a great history website to research about the Holocaust. It provides articles and archives and great primary sources to aid in the research. I would definitely consider this a history website. The second website has false information about the Nazi’s and Hitler. It does not contain accurate information and would not be good to use as a research aid.

A picture of a good primary source is Fitchburg_Massachusetts_Fitchburg_Sentinel_Page_3

This is a good primary source because it is a newspaper article from December 8, 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. It shows what was going on it the world and how the US was going to respond to the attacks.

A bad primary source would be:

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/vasmer/35901/%D0%A3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB about the Ural Mountains in Russia. It would be considered an okay primary source, but I personally do not speak Russian, so with the translation of the language, the actual meaning of the source could get lost and skew the meaning of the document.

 

 

Comments are closed.