To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?

Oh, I have a fun and instructive one for Ubik, or whomever.  Use the internet googlebots and briefly explain the defects in the primary source materials used in the composition of:

Soviet document No. 462a

If you please.

Who made this claim?

A good sign that your "argument" (whatever it is) has no legs is when you have to make up straw men to knock down.

Here we have 2 experts disagreeing. Pick a side. I chose mine.

So, let me get this straight...you are saying that timely, updated information is going to be more accurate than older information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitler_Book:_The_Secret_Dossier_Prepared_for_Stalin

"This work provides not only insight into the inner workings of the Third Reich, but also into the biases of the political system that prepared the volume. Readers also should know that this work was written not for a general audience, but indeed for the eyes of only one man: Josef Stalin. Subsequent historians have pointed out, for instance, that "The Hitler Book" prepared for Stalin omits the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, events later known as The Holocaust, or any mention of German anti-Jewish policies. Furthermore, the work is based heavily upon firsthand interviews with Heinz Linge and Otto Günsche that were conducted under torture and inhumane conditions, thereby undermining the reliability of much of the information."

Information via torture. Sounds legit.

Nice.  I thought you'd bring up that Wikipedia article.  Do you know who wrote that Wikipedia article on "The Hitler Book"?  I know who wrote it.  

It does "sound legit" though doesn't it? *snicker*

That information is on the edit page.

I am actually not sure anymore what is being argued because claims and strawmen are multiplying around here. The internet is a great place to find information, as are libraries currently. They both have advantages. One day, however, the library will be replaced by the internet. Its inevitable.

Yes exactly.

Well, Ubik you're not sure what is being argued here because I haven't gotten around to making the argument yet.  We have to establish a premise first.

Now that the premise is established, I can say that the Wikipedia article is 10% totally fabricated, and the rest wildly embellished.  I should know because I wrote that very article on 18 March 2013, and no other editors have changed any material aspects of the same.

In fact, the only real change made from my first draft was that on 17 March 2014, some editor removed my "In Popular Culture" section, which read:

In popular culture

Hitler's SS-adjutant Otto Günsche unexpectedly became a veritable internet sensation in the late 2000s, as Günsche was one of the main characters in the thousands of massively popular "Downfall" parody videos on YouTube and other sites.^[5] 

I mean, you'd have a point in saying that any monograph has the biases of the author; however, what kind of encyclopedia has articles where the authors intentionally insert plausible-sounding yet totally fabricated "facts" into their work just for a laugh?  If the subjects are specialized sufficiently, then there will be not a soul around to correct such.

Yes, but only when it is composed by educated experts and peer-reviewed.

Oh and back to Herr von Rinkleff, in the battle of the experts, since his work is a synthesis of both established historical research and his own new research, and has been peer-reviewed by several historians in the field, then yes, the edge goes to the Rinkleff on this one.

Sorry, Herr Rinkleff is the clown who said

"Here's a history question that the internet won't answer: 

What happened at the battle of Mons during World War II? 

I could give you an answer which goes on for a dozen pages or so, but the internet won't give you much more than a few scattered sentences, many of which are inaccurate."

 ...In other words, could not manage the 5 seconds of research it would take to know this is false before typing it. 

That's just idiotic. Books aren't going anywhere. Do you really think someone is going to burn them all?

Hey, Ubik, how about reading the stuff you link to, before you post it? We all know you can copy and paste, but there is more to research than that.

I do this whenever I get bored. Some of those errors have been there for over a decade, and they haven't been noticed because the editors at Wikipedia can't tell the difference between facts and fiction.

Its really easy to get away with, just cite some rare book and the Wiki editors will never go to the library and check it out.

Do you have an answer yet? What happened? Posting a link to something you haven't even read isn't much of an answer.

parler en francais

This other poster from Paris thinks that Adam von Rinkleff and I are the same person.

This other poster from Paris thinks that even though Adam von Rinkleff has been a member of this site since 2008.

Jaw dropping idiocy.

i'd say he was just cracking a joke.

                       This thread seems to be about library books vs, google. My google is CNN, and tonight the're reporting the're seems to be another sniper around the highways of Kansas City, Misouri. Like the Washington DC sniper, he's been shooting at cars. FBI and ATF are investigating.