Blurred

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378520][QUOTE=GUT;378518]

You are in no position to state that.



That source is sufficient for you.



Which we use source criticism for. Good for you that you understood this. A step forward for you.



The same applies. Systematic tools used for all times and all sources. Source critical tools.



That is a lie and an attack. Stop lying about me and stop attacking me at once.

How's it an attack to state a simple fact, please define a primary source oh great historian.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Confused:

post 130

The newspaper articles have tendencies. It doesn´t matter in the papers if "Halse was there". The articles are not reliable.

However when asked about this statement in post 133


"let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?"


The reply came in post 134 with the following 2 statements

"No. The statement is that there are tendencies in the newspaper articles giving descriptions for the GSG and the tendencies go back to the interpretations of the Dear Boss letter: "

and

"The other problem you mention is just the old problem with witnesses lying or misremembering. A well researched problem. I have been discussing that before here in the forum.

If you want to read about it you can find the sources."


The first statement from post 134 would suggest that post 130 did not mean :

The articles are not reliable.

even if it did state that.


The 2nd statement at the bottom of the post 134 Starts with:

"The other problem you mention "

However only one question was asked in post 133.

This suggests that the first statement from post 134 did not rule out that the statement from post 130 re the reliability of the Court Reports.

There is also a suggestion that if I wish to investigate this, then I should go and look for the sources myself!

Of course post 133 had asked for such sources to be provided to back up the statement in post 130.

This response is what is now expected.

so again:

Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back up the assertion that court reports from 1888 are intrinsically unreliable?

steve

[GUT]

Pierre

please withdraw the personal attack on a family member of GUT, that is outrageous and not acceptable.

steve

Steve

Thank you.

But I can assure you Mrs (more correctly Dr Gut) couldn't care less what a pretend historian like Pierre says about her, she teaches both at school and university I can assure you students she gives Fs to say worse about her all the time.

Fortunately she actually knows what she is talking about when it comes to matters like historical sources and source criticism and unlike Pierre had been published in her field, and unlike Pierre some of her peer reviewed work is, or has been, required reading at Universities around the world, not bad for a girl from a small country town that left high school at age 15.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;378518][QUOTE=Pierre;378497]

Unfortunately Pierre displays his total ignorance yet again.

You are in no position to state that.

Even quotes Wikipedia a source no self respecting historian would rely on for anything.

That source is sufficient for you.

Now are the gospels primary sources or not is a question open to debate no doubt.

Which we use source criticism for. Good for you that you understood this. A step forward for you.

Is a newspaper article about Jack the Ripper that was published in 1888 a primary source or not is a question beyond debate.

The same applies. Systematic tools used for all times and all sources. Source critical tools.

But Pierre is unable to grasp the basic difference.

That is a lie and an attack. Stop lying about me and stop attacking me at once.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

Hi Jeff,

This is such a misunderstanding. I have never written the word "cabal". So it did not come from me. I did not even use the word "group" - since I am a sociologist and know what "group" means. I wrote "some journalists". I did not put any glue between them. The reason for their interpretation is expectancy bias: not being in a cabal, or a group, or a club, or eating at the same table.

Kind regards, Pierre

No, I saw what appeared to be a joint effort by journalists from your comment, and I chose to call it a cabal or group. But it was simply a matter of just choosing some term to (in my way of interpreting your comment) simplified matters.

Jeff

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378497]

Hi GUT,

Thank you. Here everyone can see now that you know absolutely nothing about academic history.

Source criticism is an important part of finding out whether the sources can and should be used as primary or secondary sources.

And since you know nothing about academic history, and this most probably goes for - what was it; "Mrs Gut"? - too, since she is not correcting you - I will show you a very simple example.

Let´s start with a question for you - you can enjoy it together with "Mrs Gut" - and while you try to answer it you can read more at the link I give you:

Are the Gospels primary or secondary sources for the life of Jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...of_the_Gospels



GUT would do much better if he stopped pretending to be a critic of historians, supporting himself on a "Mrs Gut", while displaying such an appalling ignorance of academic history.

Kind regards, Pierre

Unfortunately Pierre displays his total ignorance yet again.

Even quotes Wikipedia a source no self respecting historian would rely on for anything.

Now are the gospels primary sources or not is a question open to debate no doubt.

Is a newspaper article about Jack the Ripper that was published in 1888 a primary source or not is a question beyond debate.

But Pierre is unable to grasp the basic difference.

[David Orsam]

let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?

This is an excellent question which I see Pierre has answered in the negative. So it's just his own personal and idiosyncratic opinion. No academic source for it at all he tells us!

In the absence of such a source, perhaps he can provide us with a list of books or articles by academic historians, of whom he approves, writing about nineteenth century British history so that we can see how they deal with newspaper sources.

[David Orsam]

No. The statement is that there are tendencies in the newspaper articles giving descriptions for the GSG and the tendencies go back to the interpretations of the Dear Boss letter:

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the Dear Boss letter:

London Daily News - Friday 05 October. And other articles:

”a round hand, appearantly by a person indifferently educated”.

Pall Mall Gazette - Saturday 06 October. And other articles:

”a good round hand, like that employed by clercs in offices”

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the GSG:

The Morning Post 12 October:

”a good round hand”

The Times 12 October:

”a good schoolboy hand”

Pierre, we all understand that a similar, but not identical, description was used by some newspapers to describe the Dear Boss letter as Halse used to describe the GSG (and was reported in the newspapers) but why does that mean there is automatically a connection? "Round hand" was, as has already been stated, a common expression to describe handwriting, same for "good hand". Why does the similarity lead to the conclusion that there was a "tendency"?

If all you are saying is that there is a similarity of expression then it is not good historical argument - indeed not a good argument of any type - to say that the newspaper reporters were deliberately fabricating their reports of the inquest proceedings to try and link the Dear Boss letter with the CSG. It is, in fact, a bizarre argument.

[Pierre]

let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?

steve

No. The statement is that there are tendencies in the newspaper articles giving descriptions for the GSG and the tendencies go back to the interpretations of the Dear Boss letter:

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the Dear Boss letter:

London Daily News - Friday 05 October. And other articles:

”a round hand, appearantly by a person indifferently educated”.

Pall Mall Gazette - Saturday 06 October. And other articles:

”a good round hand, like that employed by clercs in offices”

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the GSG:

The Morning Post 12 October:

”a good round hand”

The Times 12 October:

”a good schoolboy hand”

The other problem you mention is just the old problem with witnesses lying or misremembering. A well researched problem. I have been discussing that before here in the forum.

If you want to read about it you can find the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Halse is in the original inquest source. That is the primary source for Halse.

The newspaper articles have tendencies. It doesn´t matter in the papers if "Halse was there". The articles are not reliable.

Finally we are talking history here.

Regards, Pierre

let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?

steve

[David Orsam]

The newspaper articles have tendencies. It doesn´t matter in the papers if "Halse was there". The articles are not reliable.

Why do you think newspaper reports of inquest proceedings have "tendencies"? How have you managed to get that idea into your head?

[Pierre]

To attack a family member is not acceptable.

steve

To attack me is not acceptable.

[Pierre]

David

I see your point, yes Halse was there, and we surely must take his view over that of someone who was not and who has you rightly state being from a different force, may not have had a full report anyway.

steve

Halse is in the original inquest source. That is the primary source for Halse.

The newspaper articles have tendencies. It doesn´t matter in the papers if "Halse was there". The articles are not reliable.

Finally we are talking history here.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

First GUT shall withdraw all his outrageous and unacceptable attacks on me. I am truly fed up with them. And how can you let them pass? You see here that GUT is talking directly to me in an offensive and rude way, over and over again, repeatedly, whereas I do not even know if there is a "Mrs Gut" - since obviously, this person, who I do not know anything about, can not be a historian. So does she even exist?

If she does, she should apologize for this:

written by GUT.

Regards, Pierre

To attack a family member is not acceptable.

steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

please withdraw the personal attack on a family member of GUT, that is outrageous and not acceptable.

steve

First GUT shall withdraw all his outrageous and unacceptable attacks on me. I am truly fed up with them. And how can you let them pass? You see here that GUT is talking directly to me in an offensive and rude way, over and over again, repeatedly, whereas I do not even know if there is a "Mrs Gut" - since obviously, this person, who I do not know anything about, can not be a historian. So does she even exist?

If she does, she should apologize for this:

"Mrs Gut says that if any of the 14 year olds she has taught made such a basic mistake their work would get a big fat F."

written by GUT.

Regards, Pierre