Nine r/badhistory Youtube history channels

[@veritasetcaritas]

At 12:54 I accidentally identified the Maginot Line as a fortification of World War I, when in fact it was built afterwards and used in World War II.

[@helioslegigantosaure6939]

Bruh, but is good to give the correct answer.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@helioslegigantosaure6939 honestly I'm pretty impressed that was the only slip I made in a 100 minute video.

[@helioslegigantosaure6939]

@@veritasetcaritas yea you can be you make a great job

[@elipticon7369]

​@@veritasetcaritas You also refer to the reddit post at 1:16:25 as being from 2006, and address it multiple times in the video as if it was a critique that is actually from 2006. It's impossible for that to be the case, the History Buffs video criticized is from 2016, and the channel itself was created in 2015. The graphic shown onscreen that says 2016 is correct.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@elipticon7369 yes I caught that one after I uploaded the video, but I wasn't concerned about it since the citation on screen is correct.

[@EmperorTigerstar]

Appreciate the surprisingly merciful take on my channel lol. Interestingly my maps while yes being visual based were ironically conceived as an idea to help learners who may need a visual thing to better understand an auditory lecture in class or to grasp the significance of an event in a documentary in more presentable terms. So while they aren't universal across all learners in effectiveness, I was in a way trying to fill in a gap I remembered noticing when I went to US public schools or seeing stuff online.

[@veritasetcaritas]

They certainly meet their use case.

[@AnDoneCom]

And about the sources?

[@sylviamontaez3889]

​@@veritasetcaritasI disagree about the part on kraut being an islamophobe. he used to be part of the so called "skeptic community" but then realised just how toxic and awful they were. this was years ago. this doesn't justify or excuse his actions, but he has tried to put his past behind him and clean up his act

[@IsomerSoma]

Learning style, which you are referencing here, is pseudo-science.

[@AnDoneCom]

​@@sylviamontaez3889can't find the image link but kraut wished death to islamic people in a deleted tweet saying "good, i hope they kill as many muslims as they can"

[@noradrenalin8062]

While I defiently agree that pretty much all history themed KZbin channels severly lack proper sourcing, I can't quite ignore the irony that this video relies entirely on reddit posts as a source.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Well of course I'm citing Reddit posts, since this video is about how r/badhistory criticizes these channels. I can't make claims about how r/badhistory criticizes these channels without citing the posts in which they do so. However as I mention in the video, I only cite Reddit posts which were written in good faith, which cited reliable sources, and which were supported by other posters who also supplied evidence they were correct. So there's no irony here. Some of the Reddit posts are several pages long, and quote or cite half a dozen sources, making them far better quality than the average history KZbinr. As I also mention in the video, I rejected r/badhistory posts which were poor quality, not well sourced, criticized by the community, or in bad faith. It's all about verifiability. Additionally, my video doesn't only rely on r/badhistory posts, but my own criticism of these channels using verifiable data which I actually cite, identifying my sources.

[@noradrenalin8062]

@@veritasetcaritas Well I'm afraid it is ironic. Because - again - justified as your main criticism is, it comes across as a little _unimpressive_ when your source list is just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos which - at best - would count as tertiary sources. You seem to take a very _style over substance_ approach on a sourcing, wherein as long as a piece meets the _formal_ criteria, you seem to consider that good source work with little regard to the actual quality of sources. While some of your sources do cite several -mostly- secondary sources (which is obviously good but something every Wikipedia article does) other of your sources only cite a single sencondary source one or none at all. So I'm not to impressed with your quality assurance, to be completly honest. To bring it on one formula: The irony is that your video wouldn't score too high on your own scale... which I also think has issues. Especially category 4 rather seems to be a meassure of how well known a KZbinr is and how much fun it is to post a take-down of them. I think you have great potential, because you habe an eye for how good research _should_ be done, but you'll have to excuse when people point out you don't meet your own standards either.

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@noradrenalin8062 "your source list is just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos which - at best - would count as tertiary sources." They're secondary sources, since they are commenting on primary sources. Additionally, in their commentary they cite both primary and secondary sources to substantiate their critiques. So this is not "just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos". This is verifiable evidence for the claims made. "You seem to take a very style over substance approach on a sourcing, wherein as long as a piece meets the formal criteria, you seem to consider that good source work with little regard to the actual quality of sources." No. I explicitly identified several criteria for assessing the quality of sources. I deducted points for: * Irrelevant sources * Outdated sources * Unreliable sources Those are all aimed specifically at the quality of the sources. I don't ever credit a channel simply for listing sources regardless of the quality. As I've pointed out more than once, I applied this same principle to the Reddit posts and other criticisms I read online. I read through literally dozens and dozens of post on r/badhistory and other platforms, and sorted through them selecting those which made a verifiable case. I didn't select them simply because they used sources; I threw out many which did cite sources. As I mentioned previously, I dismissed critiques which I thought were in bad faith, which were poorly or inadequately sourced, which were personally biased against the channel in some way, or which were explicitly critiqued by other commenters on r/badhistory. In my video I mention this repeatedly, citing posts I quote which were supported by additional posts on the subreddit, posts which often also provided their own sources. So this is not at all a matter of style over substance. "hile some of your sources do cite several mostly secondary sources (which is obviously good but something every Wikipedia article does) other of your sources only cite a single sencondary source one or none at all." Yes, but you need to assess whether the claim made required more than one source to substantiate. That's how research is done. Some claims don't require more than a single source for validation. Many claims don't even require a primary source for validation. You need to weigh the strength of the claim to assess the burden of evidence required to support it. If you're familiar with scholarly literature, especially academic book reviews, you'll find reviewers commonly dismiss claims of books they're reading by citing a single source, because that's all that's required. "Especially category 4 rather seems to be a meassure of how well known a KZbinr is and how much fun it is to post a take-down of them." No, as I said it's more about their online reputation. I specifically mentioned that this is about reputation because a poor reputation doesn't necessarily mean the channel is bad. As I said in the video more than once, even a low score on this tier list doesn't mean the channel is bad. It just means that the channel doesn't follow what I consider to be good history KZbin practice. I appreciate you taking the time to both watch the video and critique it, but the critique would have more force if you could demonstrate that the criticisms of these channels are poor quality and inaccurate, rather than simply implying this is the case. Additionally, it would help if you could demonstrate that my own video here doesn't cite sources, or doesn't provide full citations, or only cites sources which are irrelevant, outdated, or unreliable. Then you could show that my video doesn't meet my own criteria.

[@Syftur]

​@@veritasetcaritas I can't help but notice that four of the seven critiques you cite in the section on Whatifalthist are sourced from one user: u/UpperLowerEastSide. That's over half of your sources on one topic coming from a single Reddit user. And if you only glanced at that user's post history, it would be enough to confirm that their beliefs place him or her squarely in opposition to WIAH in terms of politics and ideology. The critique that you unscrupulously admit at 1:11:58, for instance, betrays the user's bent toward historical materialism, a Marxist theory of history. While there is merit to the user's analysis of how WIAH represents contemporary historiography, much of the content of that screed is also dedicated to simply criticizing WIAH for having a non-Marxian view of history and politics. If you had properly evaluated that user's posts, the conflict of interest resulting from personal bias would have been obvious. From these observations of your overreliance on an unreliable source, it is consequently hard to trust that you did a fair job of assessing the quality of your selection of critiques. I also think it is fair to call these Internet posts tertiary sources. Many of them (including the one previously mentioned) rely solely on secondary source material to support their claims.

[@shakachoarroyo]

👀

[@DocuDubery]

How many points do I lose if my source is “I made it up”? Asking for a friend…

[@veritasetcaritas]

One of the greatest citations in academia; "This was once revealed to me in a dream". pbs.twimg.com/media/DWRAknGW4AAVjxo.jpg

[@DocuDubery]

@@veritasetcaritas I’m putting this in my description from now on 😂😂😂

[@CalvinNoire]

@@veritasetcaritas now that is funny.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@CalvinNoire I even have a link from r/historians explaining the background! www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y7k78d/comment/isvd6b2/?context=3

[@DiamondKingStudios]

The Senator Armstrong method of research. Bold move.

[@lemokemo5752]

Debunking Whatifalthist is a genre of its own.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's such low hanging fruit it's almost embarrassing to do.

[@marc7248]

@@veritasetcaritas Given his reach, debunking his content would be useful in my opinion.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@marc7248 that's true.

[@Anton2046gfkn]

You can't "debunk" him. He's a social critic. You can't "debunk" a opinion.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Anton2046gfkn when he makes false claims about history, those can be debunked. When he makes false claims about social and political events, those can be debunked. Additionally, when he expresses an opinion which is unsubstantiated by evidence, it can be demonstrated that the opinion is unsubstantiated by evidence. That doesn't debunk it, but it does show the opinion is unwarranted.

[@time.dilation]

WhatIfAltHist truly is a unique individual. I remember deciding to check out a QnA video he put out, and about halfway in, he straight up said he doesn't like reading books "written after the 60s". This was years ago, and it's still etched into my brain.

[@Zane-It]

Why doesn't he read books written after the 60s? To me that's really stupid

[@ConventionalChaos196]

They're too "woke"

[@time.dilation]

@@ConventionalChaos196 Yeah, pretty much. I believe this was after his weird rambling about how "western civilization" is exceptional wrt harm reduction.

[@scvboy1]

@@ConventionalChaos196 Anything that changes his reactionary world view is "woke". Regardless of the validity.

[@zephyruslodwick5931]

@@Zane-It If I remember correctly, he claims books "comparing civilizations" stopped getting written as an overcorrection from Nazism.

[@KFP_Prophet]

S tier is of course reserved for the most trustworthy, reliable and unbiased history channel: Dovahhatty

[@Георг-л5л]

Yes the most Unbiased history ever

[@MrGogi4aaa]

For me it's Sam O'Nella

[@willardijatmiko1054]

A V E C H A D D I C U S M A X I M U S D O V A H A T T Y

[@chingqing0504]

not a single biased history, yay!!! (tbf hes better than whatifalthist lmao)

[@Jupiter_One]

TRUE

[@gssalternatehistory]

I think what if althist needs to just accept that he is a polical commentator that talks about history, rather than an althistory channel or a history channel, that would avoid alot of confusion

[@veritasetcaritas]

Good points.

[@gaybowser4967]

Yeah but he doesn't even get the political stuff he talks about right. I'd even be fine with him being a political commentator except he just lies about the political history and makes shit up. In which case, he'd be a fantastic politician but still. Critiquing an ideology without fully representing and yourself understanding that ideology, adds credence to it, no matter how stupid or bad it is. Even if one is to think Communism is the worst ideology ever made (which he certainly seems to think) one should still accurately represent it so as to attack each argument made in good faith and not throwing baseless criticisms against it or insults like hOW StuPiD IS THiS iDEoLOGy!? Yet that's all I've ever seen from him

[@victorrosenheart8036]

@@gaybowser4967 Communism should be treated with nothing but ridicule and all who followed it publicly shamed for the idiotic believes. Althis has said incorrect things in the past and is very bias, though Communism is an absolute evil there is no doubt of that. The whole twenty century is filled the the failures of that ideology. Millions of people died at the hands of those who followed it blindly and sadly it is still being taught like it will work. It is just envy, a sin and nothing more. I am glad Althis has the nerve call it as such, few "historians" have the balls or are communist shitheads themselves.

[@Kaiyanwang82]

He doesn't talk about history he talks about a parallel past that exists in his head which he uses to make a political point. This is insanity.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Kaiyanwang82 that's a good way to put it.

[@iexist3919]

Learning history from youtube should NEVER be your ONLY option. I love learning history on youtube, but I also like reading books and online sources.

[@ianbadeaux7774]

Yeah, but those are for nerds.

[@abnerdoon4902]

Have you considered that not everyone can afford books.

[@Bob-bs9ok]

@@abnerdoon4902 as one of those people, if you have an internet connection it is pretty easy to get free books since libgen & scihub exist

[@samfann1768]

@@abnerdoon4902go to the fcking public library if you live in a relatively wealthy country (which most people on here do). Tons of history there

[@countspider6488]

@@abnerdoon4902I take it you havent heard of open library?

[@Lobster_Lars]

One thing I've realized over the years is to be very critical of channels that cover a large variety of history. Specializing and not commenting on topics outside of your expertise is something very few history buffs do

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes, as I mention in the video specialist history channels tend to do better.

[@E-Brightvoid]

Drachinifel is the the GOAT for this. He covers the naval history of WW1 and 2 (with a bit of age of sail and steam), has a backround in engineering, and is extremely well sourced.

[@MrCB555]

That is definitely a problem, I think. I'm an historian and host a history podcast, so I fully understand the desire to make content. But I would rather take more time to research something more diligently and also stick to something that I know, rather than just "put something out there."

[@Enyavar1]

@@veritasetcaritas Do you have an opinion already on the "Fall of Civilizations Podcast" channel? They go for extremely long-form documentaries, only have less than a dozen such uploaded, but strike me as rather good production quality. They are of course a generalist channel, and given the lengths+breadths of each of the videos, sourcing would be difficult. I only heard of /rbadhistory first today here, so I have no idea if the channel even came up there before.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Enyavar1 I have followed them for at least a year. I have noted that they go to some lengths to use good sources, especially primary sources, and since they're mainly descriptive rather than analytical (with some exceptions), I think they're pretty reliable in general.

[@alexios8783]

I largely agree with everything you said, however I think people forget that many of these channels are made up of groups of individuals, not just one guy. Kingsandgenerals, for example, has a large number of writers, but if you look at the videos of theirs featured on r/badhistory, they're all written by the same one or two individuals. That's why their quality varies so much.

[@Planag7]

Cool you have multiple writer and you know what they do on today I found out Simon finds out somebody's making up shit? Oh they FIRE them. My source: Karl Smallwood who was encouraged to make his own channel due to his writing style and success with one particular video

[@ihollander6736]

Karl Smallwood is such a cool guy

[@rolandguiscard]

I am continually embarrassed to realize how ignorant and easily tricked I am.

[@eomenia]

So am I. Throw some geopolitics into your viewing habits and it gets even better. So much bad content, unfortunately not always obvious from the start.

[@ZhangLee.]

you not now :D

[@Maussiegamer]

how do you know this channel isnt trying to trick you?

[@ZhangLee.]

@@Maussiegamer because if you had some based understand about history and watch those channel you know they suck

[@straightforward5724]

@@Maussiegamer How do I know YOU are not trying to trick me?

[@shakachoarroyo]

Damn, these reddit historians are so judgemental. We all know Whatifalt is a black hole from which no sanity can escape, but some of these other channels seem to be getting some undeserved shade...

[@papasuamae4302]

They are redditors, never give them too much trust

[@veritasetcaritas]

Well they do provide evidence and sources, it's not like they're just providing personal opinions.

[@shakachoarroyo]

@veritasetcaritas even so, a lot of the criticism comes off as "they didn't present the info the way I would've" which comes off very uppity. (Or like they huff their own farts)

[@The_Wei-a-nator]

​@@shakachoarroyomost complaints I see with presentation on the subreddit are about how it misrepresents information. And imo misrepresentation may as well be misinformation.

[@AstinCrow]

​@@The_Wei-a-natorQuite a bit is also redditors who complain about time spent on different topics, such as the quote that was used to criticize Blue's history of medieval India. While skipping topics such as the tripartite struggle can be valid, complaining about the video being so short and not going in depth on the broad history is essentially being uppity.

[@pulsar2049]

I think using r/badhistory for reviews isn't a really good idea. Critiques seem far more emotionally driven than just pointing out inaccuracies. I would just compare information on their videos directly to a trusted primary/secondary source.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I don't think that's true of most critiques, but in any case, as I explained in the video, I only used those critiques which cited proper scholarly sources which were verifiable, and rejected low quality, unsupported, or bad faith criticisms.

[@goatcheezius2399]

I agree with OP, true history isn't determined by consensus or popularity

[@pulsar2049]

@@goatcheezius2399 History doesn't have absolute truths. Our sources rely on if pliny the elder was telling the truth.

[@goatcheezius2399]

@@pulsar2049 well, either things happened or they didn't and that truth won't be found by reddit's horde of emotional midwits

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@goatcheezius2399 of course it isn't, but it's not decided by internet randos making unsubstantiated claims either. The importance of academic consensus is not that "this is how history is determined", or "this is true because many people say it's true", the importance of academic consensus is how it's formed. When it comes to historical analysis it's always easier to demonstrate a case is weak or false than to demonstrate it is true. So history KZbin channels need to make a greater effort if they want to substantiate their case. Many of them don't even try, making them easy to debunk.

[@kaiservonpanzer213]

Kraut is not perfect but he does admit when he’s wrong. However these are in the comments and most people won’t notice. In fact after the danube video, he made a community post about how he got it completely wrong and the pinned comment on that post is a comment critical of him. Even if he’s not perfect, he generally seems to respond well to criticism.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes I'll definitely grant him that.

[@kaiservonpanzer213]

@@veritasetcaritas I definitely can’t give that to whatifalthist though. He just claims that criticism against him is just the “woke leftists” targeting him for speaking the truth

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@kaiservonpanzer213 yeah he absolutely has a conspiratorial persecution complex when it comes to criticism. But of course he thinks the universities have all been "taken over by leftists".

[@_TkiT_]

His danube video made me unsubscribe from his channel so it is good to hear that at least he acknowledges his mistakes

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@_TkiT_ I heard that video was a big turn-off for quite a few people.

[@TheNeonParadox]

While I can't argue that Overly Sarcastic Productions do sometimes get history wrong when they deviate from their wheelhouses, I can argue that I've never seen Blue make an error in terms of Greek literature or mythology. I can also say that Red's analysis of literature, namely her Tropes series, is incredibly knowledgeable, well researched, and well structured. This is perhaps why people should stick to their wheelhouses in terms of attempting to educate others. That being said, kudos for this video. It must have taken weeks of research. I'm new to your channel, and I'll definitely be checking out your other work.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes I think it's very important for people to stay within their area of skill. And yes, this took me over six months to prepare, and the video went through six editions before I completed it, and even then I still wasn't entirely satisfied. But you can't make "perfect" the enemy of "sufficient for purpose". Thanks for your support!

[@Emery_Pallas]

@@veritasetcaritas additionally OSP’s history section to my knowledge is solely created by Blue, with few exceptions. To my knowledge, with the exception of the podcast where a friend acts as an Editor, the videos are made, researched by Red and Blue individually depending on the type of video (I.e. if it’s a story or myth summarisation or an analysis of tropes in media, it’s all Red and if it’s a History video, it’s all Blue), with the exception of guest videos. This structure seemingly only functions because each of them get two weeks total to make the average video, not counting “detail diatribes”, which are used to free up space in their schedules). To some extent I think within that sort of structure their faults are understandable (which note: doesn’t excuse problems) and even as someone who is a fan of the channel, I see blue as being a bit weaker (which as your video touches on slightly, is probably because the sheer timescale history can take place on makes it hard to summarise in into an average KZbin video).

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Emery_Pallas thanks for the detailed comment.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Yeah, Red and Blue aren't malicious or disengenious like others Rather, I think they portrait history as they do myths, with morals, a hero and a journey, instead of a complicated series of events with usually no right side or a lesson

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@jesusramirezromo2037 right, I think it's partly due to their interest in tropes and myth, that they gravitate automatically to more pop history narratives which sacrifice accuracy for storytelling. Not intentionally, but just because they're used to thinking in that way so when they read pop history it makes sense to them so they accept it rather than critiquing it. But that's just a guess.

[@willjapheth23789]

A scary thing is if we learn a educator or reporter was blatantly wrong months or years later, I can't just go into my memory and figure out what misconceptions I have from them and erase them.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah misinformation can be perniciously influential.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

Really? I do just that, go over what they taught and flag it up in my head as unreliable or false. A lot of learning is correction as there is a lot of nonsense out there, including in textbooks, popular history and media about history. Though I'd agree it is preferable to avoid it in the first place.

[@sarapanzarella97]

Called the “law of primacy” in the “laws of learning” I had to memorize to be a flight instructor. The material we learn on “how to teach” is so old but it’s still what popped up in my head when I read your comment.

[@heck3143]

Weirdly one of my favourite things to do for this is to find truly outdated historical texts. I have a US history textbook from the 1970s and it's fascinatingly useless. It's more misconception than information and displays the clear and obvious biases of the culture of the time. Reading it allowed me to notice where similar misconceptions came up in my own ideas and in more modern historical papers and media. Basically I made myself so intimately aware of what bad ideologically motivated historical work looks like, and now the lighter forms of it are easier to see. And the misconceptions I've unknowingly taken on, easier to unlearn.

[@compatriot852]

There's something extremely ironic about critiquing channels by using Reddit comments as a source that often are highly biased/politicized

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary. For example, r/AskHIstorians is recommended by the American Historical Association. www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians

[@veritasetcaritas]

@sigan7208 the people I take the sources from are typically centrists or liberals, not leftists. The sources they cite are typically likewise centrist or liberal.

[@tago3860]

what is the difference?@@veritasetcaritas

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@tago3860 are you asking what the difference is between an unsubstantiated opinion by a random internet person, and an evidence based statement from mainstream scholarly literature? The difference is in quality, editorial control, peer review, factual basis, and level of education.

[@tago3860]

@@veritasetcaritas" the people I take the sources from are typically centrists or liberals, not leftists. The sources they cite are typically likewise centrist or liberal." - u quoted I keep hearing people differentiating between liberals and leftists so what do you think differentiates them I have a general idea but I don't really know

[@joewalker4710]

As someone who used to watch a lot of whatifalthist, I really appreciate videos like this! I think my 'wakeup call' so to speak was when he was talking about how marrying distant relations had some advantages, and said he was considering making a dating app specifically tailored to find your third cousins 😅

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yikes!

[@nerag7459]

Shelbyville Manhattan : I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!

[@Mercury29477]

Honestly my wake up call to stop watching whatofalthist was the vaush debate and also because one of my friends told me and other ones a bunch of his bad history

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Mercury29477 I have to say, if someone comes off bad in a Vaush debate, they're certainly not doing well.

[@godscroissant1539]

He was joking you are being bad faith

[@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes]

Shoutout to Crash Course World History’s “Swedish doesn’t sound like Russian so the Rus’ couldn’t have had anything to do with vikings” implication and Extra Credits’ butchering of the map in their episode on the Volga Rus’ where they describe going west northwest upstream as “North of Volga Bulgaria”. Also depicting Cleopatra as a girlboss who adeptly manipulated Caesar, Octavian; and Antony to her own ends even though she didn’t do that at all and dies in the end.

[@veila0924]

They really said all that? I remember checking one episode and nopeing right out. It was cringe and full of forced memes 😮

[@simoneidson21]

Except she absolutely did. Obviously she ultimately failed but the reason there’s so much overcorrection when it comes to Cleopatra is because how so much of academia has focused solely on how she was this super hot temptress, when she wasn’t.

[@kregy7509]

​@@simoneidson21 ​,how did she manipulate them? I don't know much about history, but reading Augustus' biography didn't make her seem all that important.

[@telcharthegreatsmithofthef7585]

@@kregy7509 augustus was her political opponent, so there is a bias there How much she "manipulated" is hard to say, but she was without a doubt a very influential and important ruler during that time. Egypt was one of the major powers in the Mediterranean, and Cleopatra played an important role in politics.

[@iapetusmccool]

​@@simoneidson21has "so much of academia" really focused so much on "how she was a super hot temptress"? Isn't that hollywood/ pop culture that has done that?

[@loathecraft]

>cares more about the soources being citied than historical accuracy >redditor checks out

[@veritasetcaritas]

I don't care more about sources than historical accuracy. I marked several channels down for poor accuracy despite marking them higher for using sources.

[@happygofishing]

,

[@nietzscheankant6984]

@staeins Simply making up a lie is not a counterargument. @@happygofishing There are two ways to be an "NPC" (a nonthinking individual): one is to blindly accept what one is offered (by peers/authorities one trusts/w/e), other is to blindly reject what one is offered (by people one doesn't like or w/e). Though these two in actuality tend to go hand in hand, at least here you're presenting yourself as (at least) engaging in the latter form. A criticism is valid (or not) based on its merits, not on where it happened to be posted (or you encountered it). You rejecting a criticism because "it was posted on Reddit" is basically the ever-so-slightly more mature version of "girls have cooties": a proclamation of your own immature emotional biases.

[@p00bix]

'soources' are how you ensure historical accuracy my guy.

[@subashira]

this is the dumbest comment i have seen so far

[@TheHetzer-xy9lb]

OSP has put a lot of their videos including the classical warfare video into a delisted playlist called Bad History.

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's a good decision.

[@TheHetzer-xy9lb]

@@veritasetcaritas Regarding the other videos mentioned, I believe the Byzantine Empire video might be in it. You also referenced a post listing classical history videos that were inaccurate, I haven't looked at the post yet but there are a lot of classical history videos in playlist so I assume there is some crossover. I don't think the video on the Ottomans you brought up was in it. Edit: It was the Persian Empire video that I was thinking of. The Medieval India and the Crusades video is also not in the playlist.

[@TheHetzer-xy9lb]

@RageDuck0 while I agree with what they said about some channels, this video is a mess and using Reddit comments as the only proof a channel was wrong is so stupid.

[@airl10]

I remember Whatifalthist mentioning how a friend stated that his videos were completely logical and based on reason, so would be an accurate prediction of the future. What got me was that he responded by saying it was also due to his readings and knowledge of the past, but never mentioned how his predictions were incredibly unlikely. He seems overconfident in his beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning.

[@BobPantsSpongeSquare97]

This sums up his "main character syndrome". I really get the vibes that in the groups of friends he hangs out with, he's the only one who is into history and so to they see him as being inherently knowledgeable on the topic because he has read some history books, albeit only those that validate his own beliefs and he just accepts it. A comparison is how Ben Shaprio and Stephen Crowder would debate college freshman or random people on the street who aren't as "knowledgeable" on a certain topic so they framed it as those people being dumb while they were smart. And thats also why they cant debate people who are actually knowledge on the issue because they'd lose. That is who Whatifalthist is

[@veritasetcaritas]

WIAH absolutely talks about himself as if he's the main character.

[@happygofishing]

​@@BobPantsSpongeSquare97Ben Shapiro's only purpose in politics is to be an Israeli shill and trap evangelicals into mindlessly supporting Zionism.

[@donalddude7568]

No in every prediction video he says he could be wrong as he is betting against God.

[@vexed5567]

I’m sorry he doesn’t say this at all he says his predictions are logical but stuff likely wrong because of how the world is very complex.

[@sevelofficial2696]

Really interesting to hear about Kings and Generals as my Middle Eastern professor (both Middle Eastern himself and a professor of it) often showed us their videos and said how well made they were. Perhaps he meant in reference to maps and not necessarily the content itself.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I think it's also fair to say they generate so much content covering so many topics that it would really take some close examination from a specialist to identify the serious issues. The production value also gives a strong impression of profesisonalism.

[@sevelofficial2696]

@@veritasetcaritas I would agree with that, and despite one Reddit comment having an issue with a Persian history episode, perhaps we can say for the most part the Middle Eastern videos are well made. My professor is half Arab and half Persian and a created his own textbook about the region, so I'd say he is fairly trustworthy in his praise of that channel.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@sevelofficial2696 yes there's no doubt that some of their videos are indisputably better than others. They're definitely not a junk channel, just inconsistent.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

The are certainly inconsistent and I've criticised them for it in the past, however to be frank reddit is a cesspit not a reliable source, I doubt anything the critics made would be anywhere near as good as to be frank most of these people know nothing about history. If you asked 4 Chan about politics you'd also get citations but likewise they wouldn't necessarily mean anything and one would have to doubt if they had read the things in the first place. I'd recommend asking a historian with a reliable track record online like historians craft rather than relying on people who are almost certainly heavily biased on multiple levels.

[@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506]

​@@vorynrosethorn903honestly, as a history bachelor, on the topics I was informed about, Kings and Generals tend to be pretty up to date in which sources they use

[@rafaelzamudio354]

The fun part is, if any of those redditors (including the expert historians) made videos, they would be criticized for the very same reasons they hate those youtubers.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I seriously doubt that, especially with regard to the expert historians.

[@EvilLandlordAccountantMan]

​@@veritasetcaritasyou seem rather confident in the abilities of redditors.

[@rafaelzamudio354]

@@veritasetcaritas because reading a lot about one subject doesn't translate to the ability of teaching it, and even less to making a 10 minute video for big audiences. Also, they are redditors, the same people who thought they could buy an island and create their own country with Elon Musk and Keanu Reeves as gods. I wouldn't trust no one who says they are an expert in something over there

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@EvilLandlordAccountantMan I am confident in the abilities of redditors who demonstrate subject knowledge and who cite mainstream scholarly literature, and I am even more confident in the abilities of redditors who are also professionally trained historians.

[@hurrdurrmurrgurr]

@@veritasetcaritas If their sources are so reputable why are you citing reddit posts instead of their sources? You may as well argue Wikipedia is your source because trained historians contribute to it and it cites scholarly literature. And it does it a hell of a lot more reliably than fucking reddit. You fail your own criteria.

[@estebanmorales6487]

Ah, yes, Reddit, that magnificent peer-reviewed journal...

[@veritasetcaritas]

This video doesn't represent Reddit itself as equivalent to a peer reviewed journal. The point it makes is that the r/badhistory criticism quoted is always based on scholarly literature which the critics actually cite. So if you disagree with the criticism you're not simply up against Reddit, you actually are up against peer reviewed literature.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@limbitsafe6620 what you've written shows you don't understand how peer reviewed literature works, or how it is used by academics. I've learned the historiographical method at college level, and have undergraduate and post-graduate experience with using peer reviewed literature. I've also been published in peer reviewed literature myself. Neither r/badhistory nor this video are about simply seeking out information to support personal biases. If you have a specific objection you need to provide evidence for it, preferably from, you guessed it, peer reviewed literature.

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@limbitsafe6620 I don't simply take peer reviewed literature at face value. I learned the historiographical method at university, and I was taught the social historiographical method, which is exactly the "man on the ground" perspective you're talking about. This has been standard in the historical academy for years. If you think you've made "major mistakes on the deeper understanding of history", by all means point them out with evidence. And no, I did not say "teams who run other channels are bad because of minor issues". I certainly did not call channels bad for minor issues. I didn't say anything like that. I explicitly mentioned that minor issues don't make a channel unreliable. In fact right at the outset I said explicitly that my criticism of these channels doesn't mean they are necessarily bad or you can't learn good history from them. I said this. "A low score on this tier list doesn’t necessarily mean the channel is so bad you shouldn’t watch it. It typically means the channel has received a lot of criticism at r/badhistory, and has fallen short of best practice for producing historical content."

[@GAMER123GAMING]

Friendly fire spotted? Mr 3 arrow conformist you do realize redditoids are on your side?

[@clmberserker245]

​@@GAMER123GAMINGlefties genuinely think reddit is a bunch of white male sexist racist basement dwellers. They eat their own for not being radical enough

[@comlain2513]

Sources cited: Reddit, HOI4

[@veritasetcaritas]

Sources cited, mainstream academic commentary quoted by people on Reddit, some of whom are professional historians or subject specialists.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@garblites yes some. But they ALL cite mainstream academic scholarship, sometimes a dozen sources, and that's why they're reliable. I'll always trust mainstream academic scholarship over a random KZbinr rehashing a Wikipedia article in a 10 minute video without any attention to standard historiographical method.

[@abadyr_]

Seems like hometeam history intentionally withhold informations to make African civilizations look "better". That's too bad, because they provide information on lesser-known topics (to me anyway). I'm much more forgiving of channels like K&G which makes errors out of ignorance or lack of care, rather than intentionally misleading viewers.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah I think HomeTeam has a tendency towards that.

[@samvimes2061]

Thank you. I just watched a few videos because I was excited to see an honest/scholarly take on Afro-centrism and now I'm disappointed. The channel reminds me of how 'resonable' nationalists behave when discussing contentious issues - never quite entering the realm of conspiracy or outright lies, but employing clever omissions and vaguery supplemented with useful worldviews the audience is bought into - all to draw conclusions that an honest overview of fact would disregard. His video on Hannibal being black is a magic trick onto itself. It's 2 minutes of introduction to the controversy, critique of that one bust, then one relatively weak supporting fact, what's basically equal to 'we can't really know so it's like 50/50', then the rest is 'you know THEY are out to get us'.

[@tylersmith3139]

They have bias, but I've never seen them try to make African civilizations look better.

[@lettuceman9439]

​@@tylersmith3139 K&G is focused mainly on the military and warfare, They a lot of leeway from their own name alone. African warfare itself barring those part of the Islamic world and African Christendom, Is relatively small scale and due to lack of written records are barely within their own scope.

[@hiddenhist]

On kings and generals - if I recall, for some of their series, they do hire specialists for scriptwriting (see their mongol series, largely written by TheJackmeister). So, not always one guy. Don't know if this influences other major projects though. Also, your French pronunciation is funny.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks. I noticed one video in which they identified a specialist, which I cited in this video, and after I had made this video one of the members of my Discord server advised me they don't always have the same researcher for every video, though they only have one researcher for one video, which doesn't seem like enough. My French pronunciation is funny because I'm not French and only ever learned a very little in school, so I don't speak it well.

[@Kaiyanwang82]

In fact, the criticism on K&G is kinda moot. Firstly, the channel improved significantly but r/smuhistorians didn't change their opinion on it. Secondly, some of the criticism in the video are absurd. "Attract nationalists" is a dumb criticism and shows the bias. K&G ofter tackles non-westerner stuff that could attract all sort of people from everywhere.

[@drakehashimoto685]

@@Kaiyanwang82What do you think of K&G? There are things that are good, while other things aren’t. I don’t know who to trust with the criticisms, and I’m ending up in the middle, filtering the perspectives and such.

[@Kaiyanwang82]

@@drakehashimoto685 I just said. Not perfect and many imprecisions are there, but they improved and have their heart in the right place.

[@turmunkhganbaatar2515]

It should be noted Jackmeister was only brought in later on though. In on of his own videos he says the earlier videos are not to a good standard.

[@Dommusicman]

I also feel bad for a guy like Kraut, who probably doesn’t even have a team who helps him work on his beautiful animations while diligently researching his information.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Kraut actually has people working for him who do his graphics. He's very careful to credit them too, and he pays them.

[@thenamesianna]

​@@veritasetcaritasWould've been more suprising if he didn't pay them.

[@MateusChristopher]

I actually watch a couple artist that he's credited because they are actually also countryball KZbinrs

[@eX1st4132]

Right, it also feels a bit wrong for Kraut and Extra History to be right next to each other, when their scope and general angle in every history video is so wildly different (even if there are legitimate criticisms).

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@eX1st4132 that is why I explained at here that two channels being on the same tier doesn't mean they're both of equal quality. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGjUh2qHd92giqc

[@boywithcrackers3871]

I prefer people take a grain of salt in this video, just as the guy critics the people in the video he himself cites Reddit as source. Search the fact yourself and make a conclusion based on that, history channels are basically crash course that should be treated as gateway to historical learning trough valid works done by actual historians. And in my personal opinion, fun is an important thing when trying to get into history and youtubers exactly are doing that.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary. I agree that history channels on KZbin are generally more entertainment than historical education, but as I point out in this video many of them position themselves as serious and credible, and advertise themselves as providing a genuine historical education. When they do that, it's valid to critique them on the basis of the claims they make for themselves.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@jacobgriggs9673 reddit isn't a person. I cited people who used scholarly literature. This is how academic study works.

[@largin386]

@@veritasetcaritas nobody on Reddit is a verified historian from any legitimate institution of higher knowledge. this is essentially "which history youtuber has the most upvotes"

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@largin386 you would be more credible if you cited evidence for your claims. But in this case it's trivially easy to prove you wrong. To take r/AskHistorians as an example, that subreddit is recommended by the American Historical Assocation precisely because it has members who are real historians. www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians Here are some of the professional historians at r/AskHistorians. 1. Roel Konijnendijk. www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/spartans-war-myth-vs-reality/ 2. Mike Dash. mikedashhistory.com/2019/01/18/ask-mike/ 3. Alex Wellerstein. www.askhistorians.com/2020-keynote 4. Benerson Little. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fpy0w/wednesday_ama_piracy_from_antiquity_to_the_present/

[@MCArt25]

AskHistorians is a more well regarded and peer reviewed source than any of these tube channels

[@thecringekid5744]

Man, I remember when Extra History was good. They actually got me going down the history rabbit hole for like 5 years of my life.

[@notme8232]

I think they're still good as an entry point to the field, they themselves admit that they aren't fantastic historians, but it's much more interesting than most historians, largely only talking over a plain background.

[@dzagoproductions3450]

From what I've seen their quality hasn't changed much over the years. They remain a good entry point for history and an entertaining channel but taking streight facts from them is and was never a good idea.

[@chh2010]

​@@amerifatcheeseburger yep they choose a very weird hill to die on with that video Still watch their myth series though

[@TheManinBlack9054]

@@amerifatcheeseburger why? All the alt-rightoids got very mad at this, but they have a good point from a gameplay-narrative perspective. I think they know about making games a lot more than these chuds

[@TheManinBlack9054]

@@chh2010 no, its not weird, it got all the 4channers mad and out of their woodworks

[@bobchipman4473]

"These channels are bad" Source: Reddit Lol

[@galaxietab2carlos]

thank you saving us almost 2 hours of bullshit

[@jecko980]

@@galaxietab2carlos How can you tell it's bullshit if you don't watch the video. That's like talking about history without having sources

[@rafaelzamudio354]

@@jecko980 can you confirm Reddit users are expert historians and not just a nerd with his own bias towards certain themes?

[@src175]

​@@rafaelzamudio354You ever seen the Insider Ancient Warfare Expert videos with Dr. Roel Konijnendijk? The ones where he talks about digging ditches to win battles? The guys a verified Redditor on r/AskHistorians, going by the name Iphikrates. Guy's got a PhD in Classical Greek History.

[@Smethells2023]

@@rafaelzamudio354 Yes actually, when they cite their sources to be crosschecked/verified (and they often do- more than these YTrs do).

[@sammagictv]

As an historian, the issue with all of these channels and reddit comments is that history is naturally argumentative and controversial. What makes sources reliable is not always consistent, and simply because a Reddit poster is sourced doesn’t mean they’re anymore correct than the YT channels they’re criticizing.

[@veritasetcaritas]

As a historian you would know that unsourced claims are less reliable than sourced claims, peer reviewed scholarly literature is more reliable than the personal opinions of non-scholars, and scholarly consensus is a good guide to which arguments and controversies are regarded as substantially settled. I don't think all of history is just a wild grab-bag of arguments, controversies, and personal opinions all of the same value. Surely you as a historian are better informed and reliable than a KZbinr without any formal training in history providing nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinion. I agree that "simply because a Reddit poster is sourced doesn’t mean they’re anymore correct than the YT channels they’re criticizing". But when a Reddit poster is using a credible source, and the KZbin channel they're criticizing is using no source at all, or using a demonstrably poor source, then I'm going with the Reddit poster. Their claims are verifiable.

[@BIGTHANKSHEESH]

The man above gives a FAR more kinder view on your comment than I myself would. History and its research is ANCHORED by SOURCES and specifically PRIMARY SOURCES. This is History 101. The fact that you were so willing to disregard what someone said regarding history, not due to the lack of sources, but due to them being REDDIT user yet the "KZbin Historian" who has made NO reference to sources and is largely talking from is --- is not just telling, but bewildering

[@SebastianATaylor]

But isn’t r/badhistory or “Ask historians” tainted by the flaws of Reddit becoming a echo chamber. And just because you have a degree or call yourself a historian doesn’t mean the person verifying it doesn’t brings a motive for modifying the history or did so for a political reason which both are unethical way of handling the historical record.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I haven't seen any evidence that either of those subreddits is an echo chamber. On the contrary, especially at r/badhistory as soon as you make a post there people will start critiquing it. Some posts are removed completely because people think they are unwarranted criticism, inaccurate, in bad faith, or unsupported. Sure just because you have a degree or call yourself a historian doesn't mean you don't have a motive for modifying the history. But the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate such a person is modifying the history.

[@immortalituss]

​@@veritasetcaritasthey do have a clear left wing slant, and are anglosaxon biased. I would not trust them on for instance Belgian or French history, as many of them cannot read french or dutch properly

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@immortalituss I haven't seen any evidence that they are "angosaxon biased", especially since a number of them are not even European. I don't know how many can read French of Dutch properly, but I don't know if you can know either. Regardless, no comment there is worth trusting unless it is supported by reliable verifiable scholarly sources.

[@immortalituss]

@@veritasetcaritas well I have studied both the Dutch East Indies and the Congo Free State, and noted they only use english sources, while many invaluable sources are in other languages, which can cause a gap in knowledge.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@immortalituss do they only use English sources, or do they also use English translations of sources in other languages?

[@k-te5ds]

This isn't a measure of quality of history, just a Reddit Popularity contest.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Sorry, no. It's random KZbinr making historical claims with no sources, which are easily proved false by well informed people, some of them actual historians or subject experts, using mainstream scholarly literature. The r/Ask Historians subreddit is actually recommend by the American Historical Association for its accuracy.

[@bobchipman4473]

​@veritasetcaritas I'm sorry but I don't exactly have anymore faith in Redditors to get stuff right than the youtube channels. Especially people on reddit claiming to be experts.

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

@@bobchipman4473 Bad as redditors are at least they ones on the subreddits in question cite numerous scholarly sources. The channels in question most of them don't cite anything lmao. You let your own bias blind you ironically

[@BigmanDogs]

​@@bobchipman4473then why are you so pressed about this video?

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

​​​@@veritasetcaritasboth do the same. Even here in this video You said You had to filter posts and comments made out of spite and bias against the KZbin channels. So at the end, both are equally unreliable, with only few accurate examples

[@TheEGames]

1:31:51 Wait.. WHAT?? What an absolutely bizarre criticism “his videos are bad because blind people can’t watch them because there’s no voice over….” They’re videos about maps, I’m all for making things more accessible but what a strange thing to say. I guess video games suck too because blind people can’t play those

[@veritasetcaritas]

I didn't say his videos are bad. On the contrary, he's literally on my list of recommended channels. Emperor Tigerstar and I are friends and have collaborated previously. I just said I am not a fan of him presenting his timeline videos (which is only one category of his videos), with only visuals and no commentary, since it makes them unaccessible to people who aren't viewing them. That includes myself, and I am not blind. I am in favor of making history videos as accessible as possible. Video games are often great at providing for the unsighted, because they have audio cues.

[@MCArt25]

that's correct

[@Yceb0x]

THANK YOU.

[@Ryuell-gz9to]

I want to believe you, but I sadly have to stop because of your description. I don't trust anyone from reddit, but even worse when they come from r/badhistory

[@veritasetcaritas]

You don't have to trust anyone from r/badhistory, but you should pay attention when they cite mainstream scholarship and academic consensus. When they do, you're not arguing with some internet rando, you're the internet rando arguing with scholarship and academics.

[@sweetpapad4674]

Ok but did you go over both their quoted scholarly work and the video in question, what if the scholar work they provide is wrong or misunderstood what if they misunderstood something in the video, I only really watch four of these KZbinrs so I can’t speak for all and lord knows it’s not like they can’t get thing wrong I’ve had my own disagreements with some of there information my self ( though I’m a casual using internet sites wiki and such a couple of local library books and documentary’s so I’m probably in the wrong here) but isn’t it a bit dangerous to make yourself the authority on this and judge all above, what if you get something wrong, what if you fall for false claims or bided work. especially since far as I could tell from the introduction your just going over the reddit posts not seeing the post going to watch the video then researching the subject yourself to dot the I and cross the T meaning your not doing an in depth of what these supposed issues are to the scholarly work there being put against, as it is the only thing we’re really sure on is that they don’t site sources which admittedly is very bad, but I don’t know just seems dangerous how this format is.

[@noahgreer1497]

Seeing as this is coming from Reddit of all places I only really buy whats said about whatifalthist. Literally one of the criticisms for OSP reads "Blue did this, this, and that wrong, but Red is cool" like its not obvious when a redditor is simping.

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's true, but I didn't say that means Red is good, and I identified weaknesses in Red's content too.

[@Yceb0x]

And let's not forget the disappointed commenter who watched a _condensed_ history video of medieval India and felt disappointed that it wasn't detailed. SMH man

[@board-qu9iu]

You criticisms of King and Generals are fair imo even I if I do love the channel for introducing me to history

[@veritasetcaritas]

I have collaborated with K&G, and I really think they make a strong effort to produce good history. They also select research staff based on their subject knowledge. However, with the sheer volume of content they put out, with such a tight deadline, and on so many subjects, and typically only covering them in 20 minutes, it's inevitable that their content will be uneven in quality.

[@board-qu9iu]

@@veritasetcaritas yeah. It obvious that when they have the time they make amazing stuff as shown in their alternate history of mongols invading Europe which take a month or more to make

[@daarom3472]

As a history grad I don't "mind" K&G. Even most textbooks written by historians gloss over stuff or give inaccuracies. A thorough historiographical deepdive on even a minor topic can easily take up to 12 months of intense reading. Then there is also the issue of very unreliable sources (do we really know what happened when the crusaders took Jerusalem?) which leads to varying opinions between historians which each being able to make a good case. K&G does storytelling, and does it well.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@daarom3472 yes I like them myself. I've even collaborated with them on a history video project. I mainly marked them down for sourcing and citation practice. They would have received a significantly higher score otherwise.

[@drakehashimoto685]

@@daarom3472What is your view of K&G? From what I’ve seen, they are good in other topics, but not so much in others. I’m feeling concerned, conflicted and I don’t know what to think atm (I’m kind of in the middle). Sorry if this seems odd or something.

[@kebabkebob7808]

It's funny that Reddit gets so mad at youtubers when Reddit itself is easily the worst place to learn history. Generally Reddit "historians" are all politically motivated on one side or another and r/badhistory has some of the most hilariously bad book long rambles attempting to take down either single sentence comments or things that aren't bad history at all.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I am going to need a citation for that.

[@kebabkebob7808]

@@veritasetcaritas Well you for one, you're a LOLarchist

[@OhNotThat]

You seem to not have much in the way of substantive arguments, just hating on reddit itself. Do you have a real basis for this backed up with evidence?

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@OhNotThat isn't it interesting how these people are totally ok with random history channels pumping out videos without any sources or verifiable evidence, while complaining about professional historians posting on Reddit using their expert knowledge and experience.

[@BrainGodGenius]

You're not upset at "political motivation" you're upset that they, like most academics, tend to be left leaning, that's why you need to invent random reasons to dismiss them

[@mappingshaman5280]

1:11:30 ok not science since that is present in every civilisation, but Christianity? That was literally the predominant power in western civilisation from the conversion of the roman empire to the thirty years war. It was so important to western identity, that crusades and colonisation were started because of it. "God, gold and glory" and all that. As for white people, well there's a reason nobody is critiquing asians or black people when they're talking about "the evils of western colonialism."

[@loganwilliams444]

saying that whiteness is a core component of western civilization implies that non-white people are never a part of western civilization and that’s kinda bad i think

[@gssalternatehistory]

57:50 disagree with your take about celebrating empires, whetehr european or african its fine to celebrate your own empires and peoples military achievements, every culuture and people do it and did it,

[@veritasetcaritas]

Well I'm an anarchist so I don't celebrate any empires, since they all involve crushing other people.

[@gssalternatehistory]

@@veritasetcaritas hmm fair point, agree to disagree then!

[@sasi5841]

​@@veritasetcaritasanarchism is possibly the only way to legitimately be against imperialism.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@sasi5841 well I think it's one of the ways, but I think it's the best way.

[@ExSpoonman]

You really should minimize the weight of some slimy redditors bitching about a channel. Keep in mind, redditors are notorious for being super sensitive. I get what you're trying to accomplish, but you cannot rely on the creatures that make up most of reddit.

[@tobiasglendenning7966]

Also the fact an issue exists in a few of their videos might not be indicative of their whole store of videos. It really might just be a couple videos, the issues might not be that bad. You don't know unless you watch them directly and not through sporadic reddit posts

[@superhetoric]

w8 until you find out about /his/

[@TheHetzer-xy9lb]

​@tobiasglendenning7966 nearly all of the OSP videos mentioned were some of the first history videos they ever made and are literally in a unlisted playlist called "Bad History". Criticising the entire channel for a few videos they clearly think are bad is wild.

[@lollertoaster]

Hometeam is truly a sad case. African history is underrepresented as it is, bad African history is more harmful in spreading misinformation than, for example, bad history about WW1.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I've been very sympathetic to him in the past, but unfortunately he seems to have been drifting increasingly in a Hotep direction.

[@Caleb6000]

My guess is its a burden of being the only large history channel doing African history. If there were more large channels covering African history I don't think he would feel the need to 1) try and cover ALL of African history 2) get tempted into nationalistic Hotep-style dialogue (because that section of his audience would have somewhere else to go).

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Caleb6000 I think that's quite likely.

[@andysawyer647]

​@veritasetcaritas I will watch your video on the ishango bone before responding. I appreciate the way you laid put your video, but there were some interesting interpretation and assumptions during this portion of the video that I have contention with. Overall I think this was well thought out. PS the misses of hotep and the general tone of this comment definitely fit how display my reticence with your conclusions.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@andysawyer647 thank you.

[@Doodles00312]

In spanish we have a little joke for the people who say bold things without good sources "Fuente: de los deseos"

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's excellent. Reminds me of perhaps the most infamous footnote in an academic publication, "This was revealed to me in a dream". Some source!

[@Doodles00312]

@@veritasetcaritas Really? That sounds extremely goofy I can't believe it. It sounds almost like a shitpost

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Doodles00312 it's a fact. To be fair, the person writing was a mystic who said he had gained an insight while asleep, so it's not quite the same as making a claim of fact based on a wild vision. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y7k78d/what_was_the_context_of_the_famous_this_was_once/

[@DestructorN7]

Fuente: Cibeles

[@dougrossi9467]

>this video >this channel Reddit moment, coal, soy, cope, seethe and dilate

[@dr0g_Oakblood]

I’ve joked before that WhatIfAltHist seems like some of his videos are just HOI4 games in KZbin format, and that some vids seem to suffer blatantly from Paradox-brain.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah he's a right wing fantasist.

[@Ihrun]

Accusing others of having strong political bias while having a strong political bias, lol!

[@board-qu9iu]

You should do this more but I’m with a bigger amount of youtube like oversimplified, Armchair historian, and the Cynical historian to name a few

[@saadsachwani2837]

I think armchair and oversimplified would be D because they don’t cite sources from what I know I haven’t watched their videos in a while so I could be wrong. Cynical historian cites his sources pretty well but I think the only criticism you can make of him is he oversimplifies some issues but that’s kinda rare I’ve never heard any egregious errors from him so probably A or B it helps he’s an actual historian lol

[@board-qu9iu]

@@saadsachwani2837 yeah even if I don’t like how some of Cynical historian treats criticism and is bias towards the left

[@board-qu9iu]

@@saadsachwani2837 I think Oversimplified being C makes sense since they do pop history but it’s obvious they are not a reliable source and are making infotainment

[@stanisawkasprowicz5947]

@@board-qu9iu do you know what channel are you on ?

[@board-qu9iu]

@@stanisawkasprowicz5947 yeah why ask me yhat

[@brandonschieber1138]

Whatifalthist is certainly a league of his own. Would love to see you review Fall of Civilizations, History Time, History with Cy or Jabzy.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I like FoC, he sticks with one thing and does it very well, in particular very respectfully to the cultures he's addressing.

[@jarellwilliams7287]

I love fall of civilizations. I started watching him because of his Songhai video.

[@pantalaemon]

@@veritasetcaritas he does sometimes make factual errors though, which makes me feel like he's more focused on telling a good story than getting it right. But i'm saying that as a fan who listens to his work a lot, so, like, still solid B tier imo.

[@romanusplayz-wx7ow]

what about Epimetheus?

[@baronvonjo1929]

​@@pantalaemon I was really really into Maritime History at one point. Like ocean liners from the 1840s to the 1970s. Relatively small time in history. But loads of generic history channels would talk about these ships and get stuff wrong or not mention stuff or just talk about something I never heard of. Kinda made me realize how difficult it can be to find right sources with any topic. Especially if you are being broad with entire civilizations from thousands of years ago

[@ShummaAwilum]

Great video and an important topic. That said you've managed to create a tier list that doesn't adequately demonstrate the qualitative difference between some of these channels. It's similar to (but the reverse of) ranking a bunch of things 1-10 then using criteria that results in everything being a 7 or 8, often for vastly different reasons. Again, I found the discussion of these channels to be enlightening, but the tier list itself to have little meaning outside displaying the channel pictures.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the compliment. The tier list is based on the qualitative difference between the channels which I describe in detail in the video. The qualitative differences are identified using my four main criteria, all of which have sub-criteria. I explain how each score relates to each tier list, and I explain that while channels in tiers D and above are still worth watching for history, channels in tier E and below are not. So the tier list itself is a visual shorthand for the qualitative differences I've identified between the channels using my detailed criteria. I have listed all of the assessment criteria, individual scores, and how they relate to the tier list, here. veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2023/01/04/a-bad-history-youtuber-tier-list-scoring-nine-of-the-largest-youtube-history-channels/

[@jm1695]

Also, he straight up fucked the historical Internet standardised the tier list lettering system.

[@GGYGYU-es1dj]

Ooh yeah, I realized most of these channels aren't wholly accurate after beginning my undergrad in history. With that said, some of them make for good entertainment when you're doing something else, like making dinner. Just take most things with a grain of salt, and know what you're probably gonna have to do your own research for any deep dive into a certain topic. I will admit that Simple History's Sengoku Jidai series led me to research heavily into that period myself, and I was able to pick things out in that video myself later on. I still believe they have worth as an introduction to a topic at first, gotta get people interested in history, or the STEM fields will completely overrun us lol.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes that's a good way to look at them.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

Also to be fair with a few of them they don't really claim to be an authority to the field of History Nor claim to be any sort of expert, which is where History Buffs, OSP, Simple History ect but at the same time that doesn't mean that mistakes shouldn't be corrected because thats how any Field of Education works. History Buffs fall into a lot of the Same Myths prevalent in the pop space he claims Braveheart does for example a lot highlighted here but for the KOH Review his main Fail was presenting it as some sort of Purely Spiritial/Religious Conflict ignoring fairly Political reasons for it (though tbf if we are talking about the "Average Person" from the Medieval Period they would probably answer with something similar even though thats not really the case, especially when you look at it from the top.) I myself am not a historian and did fall for this myth years ago but a mistake is a mistake.

[@zetsu154]

Reddit when you don’t make a detailed 2 hour documentary every week

[@-mikko-1373]

Uhm, source?

[@sovietsnake2729]

UHM ACKTUALLY

[@smokedbeefandcheese4144]

for real some of this stuff criticized cant even be known without going into these dudes heads. also pop history should be engaged with and not dismissed the reason people dont know real history and we get stuff like guns germs and steel is because of academics not engaging with bad ideas in a public format also some pop history is good and dismissing all of it is kind of elitist

[@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes]

When’s the badhistory subreddit poster tierlist. How else can I talk about how ByzantineBasileus is often fine when focusing on his own areas of expertise (even though he reads things extremely uncharitably) but when posting about anything outside of Persia and the Byzantines he just comes off like he’s whining about modern politics or whatever. Frequently see him in the “we can’t make any moral statements about the past at all” -10000 graveyard. Then there’s that guy who kept posting about how the British Raj wasn’t that bad and then you look at his profile and his banner is the Order of British India.

[@veritasetcaritas]

There's a reason why I was very selective in my use of BBs r/badhistory posts. I ignored quite a few of them for that reason. To be fair he does get a lot of push back from the subreddit too. I like the fact that the sub is critical.

[@godminnette2]

@@veritasetcaritas The posters that speak so often outside of their fields of expertise amuse and confuse me - though I can understand the desire to post more in these circles. Some day I hope to be able to post to r/badhistory or write more top-level responses on r/askhistorians - unfortunately, the areas in which I've done reading of multiple primary reliable sources/have a good deal of experience in are very niche, and so it's very rare someone asks a question relating to them or I see claims regarding them that need debunked.

[@ijoel6747]

As we all know Redditors are the end all be all in any matter.

[@DonPichote6898]

Thought the same 😂 as if reddit is more believable

[@veritasetcaritas]

Most redditors aren't worth listening to, but some are subject experts. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.

[@ijoel6747]

@@veritasetcaritas I don't mean any offense, but you must understand that from the outside looking in it all seems a bit 🤓🤓🤓(the subreddit itself I mean). Then again I'm not exactly sure if historians have anything better to do with their time. I have a question now, what the hell do historians actually do, is it just like a hobby for some people?

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@ijoel6747 most historians are employed either at educational institutions or in academia. Many historians are highly interested in correcting false impressions of history, especially pop history, and spend their time doing so online. A few of them have free blogs, KZbin channels, websites, or twitter accounts for this purpose. There are several professional historians on KZbin.

[@ennuiii]

You have to submit credentials to get flaired on askhistory and many other academic subreddits, I've had multiple professors recommend various ones for more niche questions

[@christopherbakyta3506]

Could you make a video discussing which KZbin history channels can be considered trustworthy? I'm a history buff and understand that for the best possible depiction and explanation of historical events, one should go to good historical sources (i.e. books written and revised by historians); but how history is depicted on some of these channels is engaging and help better perceive history. In a nutshell, I would like to know where someone could learn some stuff and later feel like they were fooled based on attracting an audience. This was a very useful video that I wanted to better explore who could be trusted, but could only find who shouldn't be trusted. This is still very useful, but it would be nice to know what sort of historical KZbin channels are worthwhile. Thanks, mate!

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks! I'm actually starting a series on the historiographical method and how to differentiate between good and bad history channels. That should be what you're after.

[@angelmatesmolan]

In general I recomend don't using youtube or any social media for reliable sources

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@angelmatesmolan in general, I agree with you.

[@christopherbakyta3506]

@@veritasetcaritas Sounds exactly what we could all use when watching history videos, thank you!

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@christopherbakyta3506 I posted a thread on Twitter demonstrating the difficulties involved in interpreting historical events when sources clash. twitter.com/caritas_et/status/1657638270954786816?t=KXkit76mMzBtqIbi9a890A&s=19

[@MrLachlan1903]

I don't really understand the metrics here. Criticism frequency being the stangest, it's essentially a reverse popularity contest for which channels draw the ire of the /r/badhistory subreddit.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Here are the metrics and the way I describe them in the video. * Historical accuracy: extent of historical accuracy and the use of reliable, relevant, and up to date sources, without pop history * Source verifiability: use of sources, sources revealed in a list and/or on screen, sources cited in full * Citation integrity: sources cited accurately without misrepresentation, sources assessed critically and selected without bias, and a wide range of sources used * Criticism frequency: how frequently the channel has been criticized on r/badhistory and other forums, and how serious those criticisms are; I mentioned this was basically a measurement of reputation This video isn't dependent on the opinions of posters on r/badhistory. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.

[@Roadwarior2]

Hence why the rightwinger is at the very bottom, since he makes plebbitors the most booty blasted, whilst the we wuzzer gets a C, and the annoying progressive film critic + arrogant fat German liberal got Es. Hell, Felton sounds almost like a criminal plagiarist, and he still gets a D.

[@KiranKingston]

35:39 the comment used mentions the First Crusade, yet Blues narration is referring to "multi-century attempt" as a failure, not just one of the Crusades individually. Looking at history, is that statement the commenter made wrong? Did Blue misspoke, if you're considering the words he used in those 1st 5 seconds?

[@LBaker-y6t]

Dude its reddit what do you expect

[@odinsboss117]

I would love to have seen a review of the very active and large channel "WW2" that covers the second world War week by week ,,.... Given how their content is framed in a very professional manner, it would be interesting to see how they stack up to scrutiny my r/bahistory, and others

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

My problem with Simple History is the clickbaity tittles, wich many pepole take seriously, since they never finish the videos, especially atracting crazy conspiracy theorists or historical deniers

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah I am particularly irritated about that.

[@MagnumLoadedTractor]

It's sad since they got me into history...

[@fiude]

I think we have to watch youtube history channels to introduce ourselves in the historical content. None of them will make perfect academical content because it would be boring and nobody will watch a video of 2 hours about something. They reflect our age; fast and incomplete.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It doesn't need to be that way though. There is a place for long form, well sourced, and accurate content. Fall of Civilizations makes good history videos 2-3 hours long, and has 994,000 subscribers.

[@trevormangus625]

@@veritasetcaritas What is your opinion on "Timeline World History Documentaries"? I've watched a couple of them and find them fascinating. What about "History Hit"? They have some longer ranging videos and was wondering if you have any opinion on them.

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@trevormangus625 unfortunately I am not familiar with either channel. However, in general I look at these features of a channel when deciding whether or not to watch it. 1. Whether or not they use sources. If they don't, it's a lot harder to verify their claims. 2. Whether or not they use academically trained script writers or researchers. If they do, I'll treat them more critically but I'll also expect them to have a higher standard. 3. Video length. if they're dealing with large topics in 20 minutes or under, especially 10 minutes or under, I will typically not bother watching. 4. Scope. If they're trying to address a very broad range of topics, I'll expect generalizations and pop history. 5. Upload frequency. If they're uploading at least once a week, I'll be more skeptical of their quality unless they have a large team. Now when it comes to History Hit, I note they put out videos regularly, but they are typically very long (almost an hour), and very detailed. They don't cite sources, but they clearly have a massive international team and they use professional historians in a number of their videos. Consequently I expect their videos to be of high quality.

[@bokkodo1]

Random KZbin recommendations strike again. Very interesting video. Maybe my biggest issue is that I was somehow expecting a channel to end up with a good ranking XD

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! I thought "r/badhistory" might give away the fact that there aren't any very good ones here.

[@bokkodo1]

@@veritasetcaritas Indeed, something I somehow failed to realize hahah

[@veritasetcaritas]

Frankly there are few history channels I would really recommend, but Fredda is definitely one. He uses proper sourcing. youtube.com/@FreddaYT

[@Yesunfortunately-r1x]

Never have I felt genuinely insulted for some dumb reason that don't even involve me than when I saw Extra History and Simple History below B (context they helped me out a lot in history exams and helped me become interested in history)

[@veritasetcaritas]

As I say in this video, they can teach good history. However those video assess how well they follow what I regard as good history KZbin practice. You can learn good history from a channel which doesn't post sources, recycles pop history, and commits plagiarism, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not following good practice.

[@Yesunfortunately-r1x]

@@veritasetcaritas yeah but when I first saw the thumbnail and before prior dialogue

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Yesunfortunately-r1x fair enough.

[@History_Nurd]

Aight aight, let me drop his here Extra Credits called Gamers, Nazis... just because they played on the German side during WW2 Shooters... They straight up said "You didnt ask for this, you didnt choose this, yet there you are, fighting for the nazis" Tl;dr: Extra Credits are extremely stupid, and full of dumb shit

[@lewis8325]

13:54 who gives a shit what commenters on the channel said? plebbitors can't tolerate anything that doesn't align with their groupthink and thinly veil their criticisms as academic critique as usual

[@electricVGC]

It really has been interesting seeing how many of the creators I watch have different levels of historical standards, and to consider how I should take in that content.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you, that's my aim.

[@amund8821]

Holding history youtubers up to academic standards is a bit silly. And simply reading up a reddit comment saying this history is bad, is not informative. And the fact that a source was used for multiple videoes is not necessarily a bad thing.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I don't hold history KZbinrs up to an academic standard. I held every channel up to the standard it claims for itself. I couldn't read or even describe all of the reddit comments I used, but I placed them all in my list of sources, so you can be fully informed. veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2023/01/04/a-bad-history-youtuber-tier-list-scoring-nine-of-the-largest-youtube-history-channels/ I agree that using a single source for multiple videos is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. However, in Kraut's case I explained why it was a bad thing.

[@janleongreve]

It's unfortunate you didn't consider "Metatron." It's not a historical channel per se, but his videos usually touch on historical subjects in depth with a focus on medieval weapons and armor, like a more serious "Shadiversity." Maybe you could critique a video like his "Is the Shroud of Turin real?"

[@veritasetcaritas]

Metatron didn't meet my criteria; not enough criticism on r/badhistory, and not enough history. But I do intend to look at his Shroud of Turin video.

[@detectordegados5292]

​@@veritasetcaritasdo TIK next! His videos are enormous and packed full of quotes and references...however he has a heavy selection bias towards the materials he supports (despite always showing the opposed opinion and authors) and sometimes make somewhat dumb conclusions and interpretations about the materials he cites. Would be a great critique!

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@detectordegados5292 I already have a couple of videos taking down TIK's argument that the Nazis were actual socialists, though I don't name him specifically; those videos address not not only his claims but those of other people making the same case. However I am starting to prepare a couple of videos responding specifically to TIK's historical claims about Gnosticism and ideology as religion, and I want to critique his overall approach to history. He has a tendency to find one source with a radical claim which appeals to him, and then trust that source blindly regardless of its quality and any evidence to the contrary.

[@coh2conscript851]

Metatron is good though

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@coh2conscript851 he can be, but I would still like to see him use sources more critically.

[@AlvorReal]

Additionally, your own political bias does regularly show through. Meaning that this is useless as sort of neutral measuring stick.

[@OhNotThat]

This is fundamentally wrong, because just because a source has a supposed political bias (something you failed to demonstrate btw) it doesn't make the actual arguments forwarded by that source any more or less correct. For example, a flat earther could argue that "bleach is bad to drink and hurts you" and you don't discredit this flat earther's bleach claim by attacking the speakers other positions, that's an ad homimin. Try better Alvor.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This would be more convincing if accompanied by evidence.

[@AlvorReal]

Try better, lol, what are you, my mother? And sure. A flat earther might not be biased about bleach, but he WILL tell you all about the mirrors and conspiracies. And instead of trying to lecture me like this is twitter, speak like a normal person. As for an example? Easy. Just listen to the tone and demeanor in which he says the words "right wing". As for him being right or wrong, I made no claims about that. Only that this tier list is not effective as a neutral standard. I actually agree with most of what he has to say, but the methodology and framing and presentation have, at times, extraordinarily damning flaws.

[@DonutOfNinja]

its useless if u have a political bias? my guy, EVERYONE has a political bias

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

​@@AlvorReal Nobody is neutral The best they can do is be biased towards evidence.

[@jarl8815]

Love how this channel criticise others for being biased while neglecting his own bias at the end.

[@BrainGodGenius]

You are literally subscribed to a nazi revisionism "history" channel LMAO

[@superhetoric]

@@BrainGodGenius amazing

[@MCArt25]

love how this commenter criticises others for being biased while neglecting his own bias at the end

[@davidcoquelle3081]

Is r/badhistory even a reliable criterion, and if so please explain why the individual complaints shouldn't be gone through with context in mind

[@veritasetcaritas]

I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary. And yes, verifiable academic commentary is a reliable criterion. I agree the individual complaints should be gone through with context in mind. As I mentioned in this video, I examined the individual complaints and rejected any which were in bad faith, which were critiqued heavily by others, which didn't provide any evidence, or which seemed to misunderstand the video they were critiquing.

[@davidcoquelle3081]

@@veritasetcaritas Thank you, for someone not familiar with Reddit, it could be necessary to explain it. I admire you're quick response, and you're lengthy explanation. Keep up the good work, and greetings from Denmark

[@davidcoquelle3081]

BTW this was not a criticism but a question, I am new to the channel so I was confused

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@davidcoquelle3081 thank you. The r/badhistory subreddit actually has some members who are professionals or subject specialists, and the rules of that subreddit require posters to support their arguments with relevant sources from reliable scholarly literature.

[@MCArt25]

why don't you list every criterion you consider "reliable"

[@Tedeum553]

True, reddit is by far the best place to learn history especially r/askhistorians with its 1.6 million professional historians

[@Fortigurn]

As I point out in my video, it's not that every single member of these forums is a professional historian. It's that people are required to cite standard scholarly sources to validate their claims, and there are sufficient professionals and subject experts to moderate people accordingly. Meanwhile other people will say "Those redditors are worthless" while praising a 60 minute unsubstantiated rant from a 20-something KZbinr they call a historical genius, despite the fact that he provides absolutely no sources whatsoever.

[@TheSm1thers]

​@@Fortigurn Just because the reddit user is required to use sources doesn't mean the sources used are applied correctly or even remotely valid.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@TheSm1thers yes, but no one is saying otherwise. However, the fact is that somoene who provides identifiable sources in a controlled environment such as a moderated forum is more trustworthy than someone who does not provide any sources at all, and more likely to be correct. If you're in doubt you can actually check their sources for validity and check to see that they are using them correctly. It's very telling that people in these comments are defending KZbinrs who provide no soruces at all, while casting doubt on professoinal historians who cite academic sources. This shows they aren't really interested in facts, they're just interested in their parasocial relationships.

[@TheSm1thers]

@@veritasetcaritas The thing is, someone can make a post on r/badhistory that's pure opinion and just tag some random wikipedia link on the end. I don't trust that any more than someone who provides no sources at all, because the wikipedia linker might as well have no source. This is why I don't see number of posts on there about a particular channel as a valid metric for determining accuracy of said channel. Lack of valid sources is a good metric however.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@TheSm1thers no you couldn't do that at r/badhistory. Your post would be deleted immediately for failing to cite proper sources. Citing from Wikipedia is banned on r/badhistory. In that subreddit you must cite identifiable mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't ues the number of posts on r/badhistorhy as a metric for determining its accuracy. I said the most that would indicate is something about the popularity of the channel there, nothing about its accuracy.

[@BullDykee]

Kraut does not have "a lengthy history of Islamophobia" . Criticizing religious zealotry is not "Islamophobia", it's an observational truth. Using negative Reddit comments as your source for that accusation is ethically wrong & degenerate.

[@Very_Silly_Individual]

Well, it's not very "wholesome 💯" and this IS a reddit tier list... so...

[@BullDykee]

Well, the truth is not always "wholesome" and if you're criticizing someone for spreading misinformation & not using credible sources it's probably a good idea to use legitimate sources yourself as to not be a hypocrite otherwise all you are doing is spreading misinformation too, which is redundant... so..@@Very_Silly_Individual

[@AMuwahhid]

He called death upon musIims in the past, that's why he's accused of Islamophobia

[@MCArt25]

you can tell when a commenter is a very normal one when they use terms like "degenerate" for their opponents in a debate and "observational truth" for a tummyfeels opinion they pulled out of their ass.

[@twins8204]

Kraut literally made a video blaming burnt toast on Islamic terrorists. No, I'm not kidding.

[@sirlightningpotato]

Some of these are like “it’s bad bc it’s so condensed” sometimes things are just overviews, and aren’t trying to be as in depth as ppl want them to be. A 15 minute overview of a topic is an introduction, not the totality of a topic, and that’s okay.

[@derekpieboy7952]

Man, I remember back when whatifalthist was just a niche alt history youtuber with some cool and funny alt history content. Nowadays he just posts "end of times" videos on his channel and is entirely dedicated to future historical speculation. This was a big turnoff for me. I very much like some of the points he makes in his videos but I will say that I've lost respect for him as time has gone on, even going so far as to unsub from him. I hope Rudyard figures out how to find his old channels magic again whilst continuing to make the other historical content that he enjoys as well.

[@luck3yp0rk93]

I’m pretty right wing and study history and economics… the good points he makes are jus the very slightly below the water in depth right wing talking points. It’s insufferable to listen to when he makes dumb claims like “slavery was good for the economy!” (It wasn’t, it hindered it) or “the Nazi economy was good actually!!!” When it was worse than its communist neighbour… relied on slave labour… was built on a fundamental lie of a loans program, then on pillaging innocent nations. Sources? Oh yea just list about 50 books without page numbers for a 40 minute video. That makes sense.

[@graham1230]

Ironic you say this considering his most recent video is about how the 2024 election will cause a civil war

[@loslingos1232]

@@graham1230A broken clock is right twice a day. But we don’t even know if he’s right about a second civil war yet. We have to wait and see.

[@escape209]

It seemed like you took a couple of opportunities to take slights at WhatIfAltHist for his political and religious beliefs. You say it's funny that he is a conservative, right-wing KZbinr, but is also a quaker, because quakers are "traditionally known for their anti-authoritarian, non-conservative and even progressive views" like you either hold all the beliefs of something or none of them (you also don't state what those views are.) That's like saying it's funny for a libertarian to be a Catholic because Catholics are *generally* known for having pro-authoritarian, conservative views. Then you also summarize him by saying "I would not recommend it for anything, unless you're interested in looking into the mind of a _conservative, right-wing Christian_ , with very little understanding of history", like being a conservative right-wing Christian is a point against him.

[@mylerwilson4879]

Mate, religious people are openly hypocritical

[@AMuwahhid]

I think the owner of this channel is a Christian unitarian anarchist I believe.

[@pendremacherald6758]

Quakers and Unitarians aren’t Christian, even though they claim such.

[@potatoeheadjoe66]

​@@AMuwahhidHe's a ignorant little fella that uses others opinions to form his own. He didn't show anything to prove Whatifalthist lies.

[@cruzaider5339]

"Source?" "It was revealed to me in a dream."

[@veritasetcaritas]

Most history KZbinrs.

[@jevinliu4658]

If this tierlist is meant to be a measure of a channel's reliability and not a measure of its damage, then I believe that features like criticism frequency in one subreddit have major flaws. Some of these channels are going to be more notable than others, and even I haven't heard of a few of them. As a result, especially with professional historians who only make these critiques after thoroughly combing through the video, a less notable channel might score higher on this criterion than a more notable channel. Or, if there is simply more enthusiasts and subject matter experts in one channel's field than another's.

[@veritasetcaritas]

As I mentioned, criticism frequency was not simply based on how frequently the channel was criticized only in one subreddit, but on other platforms as well. I provided several examples. Additionally, I explained this was simply a rough metric of reputation. All of these channels are massive, with over 500,000 subscribers, so the idea that they are not notable isn't likely. Additionally they were all criticized significantly on r/badhistory and other platforms.

[@Ginnpis]

If you want extremely detailed and sourced history content, go read a book on the subject, don’t rely on a 15 minute KZbin video made secondarily for entertainment and expect it to be worthy of a library

[@veritasetcaritas]

Exactly.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

Unless you are a student in a university, near a well-stocked library, or has money to burn buying books, Wikipedia and YT is going to be someone's library for this...

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 there are quite a few freely available resources online, especially open source journals with articles by academics, blogs by professionals, and websites with free back issues of academic journals or even book chapters. In fact academia.edu is one of the best places to find free academic material, since scholars often post it there to build their online profile.

[@fluxk7506]

my sibling in Christ, do your not have a library in the ILL program near you? You clearly have the internet so you can get a member ship to New York Public library anywhere in the US. @@theotherohlourdespadua1131

[@pax6833]

I noticed a trend on certain reviews of youtubers in that certain history channels which were criticized badly tend to be getting the majority of criticism being leveled against them was on non-european topics, especially India. It's well known that the entire anglosphere history academia has had difficulty on research into non-european sources, especially before the 21st century. I feel like the reason these content producers are being dinged so much is due to a general difficulty for them to be any more accurate, on account of the level of quality from the body of work they draw from, unless they were hiring field specialists who are familiar with common historical misconceptions in their area of expertise.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I think in the twenty first century there's no real excuse for getting basic historical facts right about a topic such as Indian history. The post-colonial historical analysis of ex-colonies has been developing since at least the 1980s, so there's around 50 years of accessible literature out there. It's not like it's a deep secret locked away. I think people just find it easier to recycle pop history.

[@nickklavdianos5136]

I'd have to say that channels like Simple History and some others, are more geared towards schoolchildren that want learning history to become more interesting. In a way, they're a doorway into history learning, and not the end all be all. Of course, if you target such an audience, your videos will probably be more simplified and more generalised, for obvious reasons. So I feel that some of the criticisms are not really valid, although not citing/ not researching proper and variable sources and being downright inaccurate are valid criticisms.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes I don't expect them to provide top tier academic research, and simplification isn't always bad, I'm mainly concerned with their application of historical method and whether they promote or correct pop history.

[@TikoVerhelst]

​@@veritasetcaritas Yeah, the way you two put it here, that's exactly how I feel about it. On the one hand you don't expect academic research, but on the other hand, you do want things to be correct. On such a free space like KZbin, it's a bit hard to say; where do we draw the line? What's our standard? But Veritas, you've made an attempt here with this video. I hope people will follow you. I think on a place like KZbin, it's most important to just have thatt conversation. To just have the different perspectives and kinda decide a standard as a historicla community that is workable. Because now, everybody is just doing their own thing without us ever wondering; what SHOULD we all be doing? What should be the bare standard we hold each other to? There's a lot of overlap in the historical community, so we should be able to come to some kind of standard. It feels like the Fashion History KZbinrs have already figured out a standard among them (Abby Cox, Bernadette Bang etc.) Hopefully we'll get a kind of "historical standard" here on KZbin one day for general history as well. But one can only hope. ;)

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@TikoVerhelst thank you for taking the time to comment in such depth. I have reached out to a few channels with the aim of collaboratively promoting better history on KZbin, but it's a thankless task not many people are up for.

[@shadychandelure2602]

Extra Credits did a series on the Bismarck a while back and they barely mentioned piorun not even mentioning what it did just saying "a polish ship kept signaling it was a pol while fighting" I just hate how much they downplayed what it did

[@tsarnicholasiiiofthegreatr5578]

That’s not really downplayed

[@shadychandelure2602]

@@tsarnicholasiiiofthegreatr5578 make (something) appear less important than it really is.-Merrian Webster

[@tsarnicholasiiiofthegreatr5578]

@@shadychandelure2602 I know the definition of the word, I also know the story of the piorun, which *allegedly* caused the crew of the Bismarck to be anxious and not as rested as they could have been due to the incident, which I do not forget, but do not consider significant

[@KaiserFranzJosefI]

​@@shadychandelure2602Downplaying something in historical academia is hardly a crime, it's par for the course if the author does not believe its as important as another

[@charlieterry8506]

Well dang, this is a rather eye opening video and honestly makes me feel a bit bad about myself for not looking more critically at my favorite creators. Like for example without hearing your explanation and just glancing at the tier list I agreed with where you put OSP but to see Kraut on the same level as Extra History (a channel I regard as especially inaccurate) came as quite a shock. hearing your detailed explanation however I now fully agree with how low you have placed Kraut on the list, and part of me almost sees OSP as deserving to be on that same level after hearing your in depth explanation of their channel to. There might be a pain of guilt in my chest now for liking both those channels so much, but at the same time I have to honestly thank you for pointing out their fallibility.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for your praise. I admire your intellectual honesty! I don't mind telling you I was initially impressed by Kraut, until I started wondering where he was getting his information from, and realized he cited a paucity of sources.

[@charlieterry8506]

@@veritasetcaritas It's people like you that remind me what is at the heart of learning new things in the first place. have a good day dude 👍

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@charlieterry8506 thanks so much!

[@rileyrose5166]

No need to feel ashamed, it’s part of the learning process! I also figured that Kraut was good because of how his research seemed good, but sometimes the devil is truly in the details.

[@matheuslemos2356]

While I somewhat disagree with the approach used to create this tierlist, mainly the scoring method, I think it’s a very good early “benchmark” for history channels on KZbin. As others have mentioned, relying mainly on r/badhistory is gonna generate some bias, which I believe would make US-based youtubers more likely to appear on the list. But again, you gotta start somewhere, and r/badhistory might as well be one of the better easily accessible online places to do that. I’d like to also mention that given the method you’ve chosen to critique these youtubers, I’m very glad that you kept a mostly neutral and honest analysis. By the way, very cool of you to state clearly that you were critiquing the content and not the creator’s personal view on politics :)

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! You might be interested in my upcoming video on the reliability of reddit as a source for history. kzbin.infoUgkx8CFcRLJeHww3dRDmg5ETm9Ksq1dHxNyr

[@tiropitaproductionss]

Kraut's Turkish series was unfathomably biased when it came to the Greco-Turkish war of 1919, making the Turkish army seem like heroes, haven't watched a video of his since.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah I find him unwatchable just due to the extent of his free form narrativizing without reference to sources.

[@shinobiighost6946]

Trust me bro, we down voted it on Reddit. LMAO.

[@eriksolfors]

A very interesting and good video. While I do watch channels like Extra History and Kraut it’s still interesting to hear the critic of their methodology and historical claims. Atun-Shei is as you say an amazing channel and I would recommend Knowing Better if you aren’t already aware of him (which I suspect most people are by now).

[@SputnikRX]

Yea those two certainly aren’t extremely biased.

[@atari947]

@@SputnikRX History is all about viewing things from different perspectives. Look at his King Philip's War videos.

[@muse5722]

This guy seriously has a monologue criticizing a map channel (something impossible to communicate verballs without getting extremely verbose) for using only visual methods... and uses it as an opportunity to brag about his videos' inclusivity. Otherwise the video is mostly full of fair critiques of the subjects held in question, but you've earned a dislike for that boasting.

[@veritasetcaritas]

That's not an accurate description. Emperor Tigerstar and I are on good terms, and have collaborated in the past. Additionally he posted a comment below thanking me for complimenting his channel and for praising his stance against right wing interpretations of history. I simply made the comment that a silent video isn't accessible to people who aren't viewing it for whatever reason, including the reason that they simply aren't able to. I pointed out that this was an accessibility issue, and noted that I make my videos differently for this reason, to prove I wasn't being hypocritical or holding someone to a standard to which I don't hold myself. That wasn't remotely a boast. In our exchange below, Emperor Tigerstar explained why he made his videos this way, and of course it's nothing to do with the idea that it's impossible to verbally explain maps without being verbose (it isn't). He explained that he made his videos that way because they were originally made "to help learners who may need a visual thing to better understand an auditory lecture in class or to grasp the significance of an event in a documentary in more presentable terms". He nevertheless acknowledged " they aren't universal across all learners in effectiveness". I responded by acknowledging "They certainly meet their use case". So we understand each other perfectly well on this matter.

[@DrevorReal]

The section on Kraut had me confused. Not one of the reddit posts mentioned actual detail any of the mistakes he supposedly made. And considering the charge of islamophobia, it's hard to take any of it seriously.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Did you actually read the reddit posts? Several of them are at least a page long, and not only explain his errors in detail but cite specific sources to correct him. I linked to all these posts in my list of sources. veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2023/01/04/a-bad-history-youtuber-tier-list-scoring-nine-of-the-largest-youtube-history-channels/ Here is one of the comments. Note the details and the sources listed. www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/fss85b/misrepresenting_the_turkish_history_by_youtube/ Here is another, several pages long. Again note the details and the sources listed. www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/q6jysc/krauts_new_video_mistakes_and_inaccuracies/ As for Islamophobia, again did you read my source? I cited a Reddit thread which included direct links to many of his Islamophobic comments, such as these. - we live in a world where one has to kill Muslims, to save non muslims - The reason why I started my channel was the mass sexual assaults committed by Muslim migrants in Cologne - Even pre-migrant and refugee crisis crime statistics on rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of children show that per population group Muslim migrants commit more of these crimes - we have seen a massive increase of sexual violence perpetrated by Muslims - in our courts those Muslims who committed those crimes got away without consequences - if you want to get away with rape, all you have to do is convert to Islam

[@spartacist101]

What an embarrassment of a video. Was actually interested to see what criticisms there were from historians of Whatifalthist and there were some legitimate criticisms like a lack of sources or quotes. Yet the main thrust seems to be that his videos cater to a right-wing audience (so right-wing bad) and he quotes from Thomas Sowell, who in your own biased words is a "shill" for the Republican Party - which highlights your own bias - whereas you didn't criticise what Thomas Sowell actually says. I thought this would be a criticism of Whatifalthist's history, not his political views

[@ProvencaLeGaulois]

Historia Civilis sparked my interest in history, am a bit disappointed that you didn't assess him. I only know of r/badhistory to look for youtube history channels reviews. But you mention other websites throughout the videos without saying their names, what other websites could you point me to where I could find reviews of Historia Civilis content? Sorry for my English and thank you for the extraordinary amount of time that this video must have taken to produce.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Your English is excellent, don't worry! The most serious critiques I found of Historia Civilis on r/badhistory were these two from three years ago. That wasn't nearly enough for me to warrant a review, especially given the channel is so inactive. I haven't found Historia Civilis critiqued significantly elsewhere. www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/dmuqim/historia_civilis_the_battle_of_agincourt/ www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/cuogv2/debunking_the_clusterfuck_that_is_caesar_as_king/ He has received some good comments elsewhere on Reddit, such as r/history, but they were from years ago. He is discussed on Quora but I don't trust Quora as a reliable source. www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/35a2ta/historia_civilis_a_youtube_channel_of/

[@ProvencaLeGaulois]

@@veritasetcaritas thank you so much for the links and the informative response

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@ProvencaLeGaulois you're very weclome.

[@wecare838]

Kraut is fairly well in hiding his inadequacies. He has been in good terms with yt algo, his videos are prominently recommended.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Sadly true.

[@reformedpeter-timesoul9778]

I still watch many KZbinrs in and out of this channel but I have acquired a certain level of cynicism and skepticism for content creators in general. Someone may sound reasonable and informed but that definitely doesn't mean they are.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This is why I look for sources a channel had used when watching historical videos in particular.

[@reformedpeter-timesoul9778]

@@veritasetcaritas Note, I love it when channels reply to comments made on their videos. I understand why big ones only reply to big ones but this is another reason why I like smaller channels. It makes it feel like KZbin is actually a social media (which it is).

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@reformedpeter-timesoul9778 Thank you. I do my best to reply to comments, but it's hard to keep up sometimes, very hard with the way this video has exploded with comments recently. I am sure I've missed a few given KZbin's notification system is not particularly reliable.

[@pantalaemon]

youtube as a platform is not necessarily built to incentivize the most accurate or in-depth content, so while your skepticism is valid imo, i'd refrain from being too mad at individual content creators for how they survive on this platform whose algorithms are ultimately indifferent to (and sometimes hostile to) nuance.

[@CherryMosley]

Alt title "Left Winger rates history youtube channels"

[@veritasetcaritas]

Left winger rates history youtube channels based on mainstream scholarship, and doesn't judge them for their political stance.

[@Ginnpis]

⁠@@veritasetcaritasyou’re only criticism of lindy beige when asked is that he’s a right wing British guy who is proud of his country, but whatever you say. It’s your right to do so but you don’t have to lie about it

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Ginnpis what do you think I am lying about? I gave specific quotations from Lindybeige identifying the views of his for which I have criticism.

[@happygofishing]

​@@Ginnpishe doesn't have an unbearable intersectional outlook on life, so he must be purged.

[@Grim2]

Hostility toward Ottoman empire? Oh, no, who would ever be hostile toward maniacs that built towers out of human skulls (go ahead, google ćele-kula) ...

[@Tony_Soprano2]

I get that you’re just showing what the subreddit thinks of History KZbinrs but Reddit is the most Antagonistic niallist place on the internet. And their take on anything whatsoever is going to be bitter & grossly antagonistic. But hey, do whatever pleases you.

[@veritasetcaritas]

That is a very reductive view of reddit given the number of subreddits which have a significant percentage of qualified professionals providing verifiably high quality information. Subrerddits such as r/Askhistorians and r/badhistory are not antagonistic or nihilist, nor are they bitter and grossly antagonistic. They simply hold members to a high standard of quality, requiring them to support their arguments with citations from mainstream scholarly literature. This is a far higher standard than 90% of the history KZbinrs out there, who spin a narrative without any evidence whatsoever.

[@OhNotThat]

Your whole argument here is that "reddit sucks", with no actual substantive critique. Even worse, you dismiss actual substantive critiques of each of the said channels with a vague attack on the platform on which these criticisms appear (reddit). Very poor form, try again Mizzkwizzt.

[@madmouse4400]

I feel like it's more a leftist appreciation of history Channels on KZbin than anything else.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Well virtually all of the criticisms I quoted are from non-leftists, and the framework I created for assessing the quality of each channel has nothing to do with leftism. If this was a leftist assessment I would have used criteria specific to leftism.

[@abetheconservationist595]

What are your opinions on Jabari of the channel "From Nothing" and Aztlan Historian?

[@veritasetcaritas]

I have avoided criticizing him on my channel so far, since I don't want to pick on him given he's a one man operation doing his best, and he does provide better sourcing for his videos than many history channels, but the fact is his videos often draw conclusions well beyond the evidence, and he sometimes uses unreliable sources. So I might critique him a little in the future.

[@abetheconservationist595]

@@veritasetcaritas Understandable opinion. It sucks that he is frequently and erroneously painted as an Afrocentrist for his occasionally flawed analyses, despite multiple rebuttals.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@abetheconservationist595 yeah he is completely on another level to someone like this guy, who is just grifting for clicks. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5iqeH2qqrmDqpI

[@abetheconservationist595]

@@veritasetcaritas Yeah, I saw your videos on Great House. By the way, would you like me to create an article about you on Wikitubia (a.k.a. KZbin Wiki) like I did with Jabari and Pete from Ancient Americas?

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@abetheconservationist595 sure, go ahead. Add what you want, I don't want to gatekeep the article.

[@AlvorReal]

The fact you use reddit and base your analysis on that means you should be disregarded out of hand. And setting aside the subjectivity of many your criteria and a few other methodological flaws (notably holding different channels to different standards), you put a LOT of effort into the video. But the fact you cite that particular echochamber as the primary basis of information means that nothing you say can be taken as honest or serious.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite PEOPLE on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. These are not mere internet randoms with personal opinions. The American Historical Association explicitly recommends, and cooperates with, the subreddit r/AskHistorians. "AskHistorians is, in effect, a training ground for historical thinking facilitated by the moderators and experts.", Sadie Bergen, “Have a Question about the Past? AskHistorians. | Perspectives on History | AHA,” Perspectives On Hiistory, 1 February 2010, www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians

[@AlvorReal]

Reddit as a site self selects for a political bias. My position is that by relying on Reddit as.... framework, I suppose is the right term, and relying on people who operate within it, your sources are inherently biased to comply with Reddit's own flaws.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@AlvorReal without any evidence all this exposes is your own bias.

[@AlvorReal]

Let me start over. I agree with about 85-90% of everything you say in video. I just don't think you selected good sources of your own by overly relying on Reddit, a site which has a known political bias and agenda, and that both your framework and your scoring criteria need a pretty severe rework. On a personal note, maybe think about reworking your own presentation, too. Anyways, I hope your vid does blowup and you keep making content man. You clearly have passion and talent! Edited because mobile is janky af.

[@oliverstianhugaas7493]

All being said Turkey still denies *TO THIS DAY* that the genocide happened.

[@helloimskip]

I'm surprised you didn't covered History Matters considering how big the channel is and how bite-sized the content is and also how frequently they upload.

[@veritasetcaritas]

It was because that didn't have a sufficient presence on r/badhistory. This video is the r/badhistory tier list, not history KZbinrs in general. But I might do a video on them in the future.

[@helloimskip]

@@veritasetcaritas Oh I see, thanks for responding though.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@helloimskip you're welcome.