What are reliable YouTube sources?

[gruad]

I have got some other information apart from the internet and I used to read my dad's books about World war II and aircraft.

But I can't take it on faith now as to which internet source is available and I enjoy watching various channels that give information about World war II.

But in terms of arguments where absolute facts have to be involved, I would say that they would have to be some kind of rating as to the validity of these internet sources.

So if I for arguments sake, suggest that these various ratings apply. It would be interesting to see experts would apply them to the websites

A= very trustworthy
B= Good source
C=Right 50% of the time, maybe fed bullshit
D=Little correct. Someone pushing an agenda

 

[SaparotRob]

As a rule of thumbnail, if the description has exclamation points or states everything you know is wrong, it's probably clickbait.

 

[gruad]

So typical websites would be

Rex's Hanger
Drone Scapes
The guy who said the B17 was crap
Etc etc

If we give a rating then information can be taken with a pinch of salt or more considered trusted.

 

[SaparotRob]

Dude. You put to words my very thoughts.

I like Rex's hangar. The host really seems to put in the research. He points out inconsistencies in the records and I believe he lists sources. Military Aviation History, well the host practically lives in the Bundesarchiv. I haven't checked out Dronescapes yet. Ed Nash's Forgotten Aircraft is also up there.
LazerPig is more entertainment.
There are a lot of folks here that really know their stuff. We should wait to hear from them.

 

[33k in the air]

WWII US Bombers

The channel is run by a retired Boeing engineer, and cites, on screen with excerpts, numerous primary source documents (official government reports, studies, manuals, etc.) for each subject examined.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IHYLS is also a pretty cool aviation-oriented channel that's fairly accurate.

 

[Just Schmidt]

I have to admit Hard Thrasher is a guilty pleasure of mine.

He's certainly not always right, and he's never diplomatic. He sometimes fall into old traps, and he is very provocative. He's certainly rocking the boat. As long as you check him against other sources, you should be fine. (That goes for everything, if you hear something new or doubt old givens, don't take any single persons word for it). I don't think he's pushing any agenda except default iconoclasm. I'm quite OK with anybody hating his guts, but I enjoy sarcasm.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjnVBXPgz4U

Rex is very informative and well sourced, and appears generally trustworthy.

Ihyls i agree with thumbanailpacus on.

Avoid anything calling the Hampden the plane that kept Hitler awake every night, and NEVER watch channels that offer you the 'real truth'. DON'T trust anybody writing whole words in italics.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I have got some other information apart from the internet and I used to read my dad's books about World war II and aircraft.

But I can't take it on faith now as to which internet source is available and I enjoy watching various channels that give information about World war II.

But in terms of arguments where absolute facts have to be involved, I would say that they would have to be some kind of rating as to the validity of these internet sources.

So if I for arguments sake, suggest that these various ratings apply. It would be interesting to see experts would apply them to the websites

A= very trustworthy
B= Good source
C=Right 50% of the time, maybe fed bullshit
D=Little correct. Someone pushing an agenda

Its all very subjective, some channels I regard as being basically worthless from the perspective of rigorous historical accuracy have nearly 100,000 subscribers, most of whom clearly love it.

Generally the best way to check anything (which is limited) is to read all the comments underneath, it will soon become clear if the content creator either:

a) Never responds
b) Gives unconvincing "yeah well you know..." defensive comments
c) Hammers critics into the ground like tent-pegs with archive references


a) or b) usually mean they have no, or not enough idea what they`re doing.

c) Is pretty rare to find.

A bigger problem isn't the stupid videos, its the ones which are NEARLY very good which are dangerous, as people who are not top experts can come away thinking
they`re watching a serious scholar.


The only channel I know of which is trustworthy, is:

https://www.youtube.com/@MilitaryAviationHistory

This is not to say that its "guaranteed" that every single thing he`s ever said online is the best possible interpretation, but I know him, and
have helped him with several videos, and can say that he is really trying to be a good historian and wants to really find out the facts.
He does a reasonable amount of original archive research.

There are lots of other flashier channels, but most seem to me to be very "conclusion" driven, in other words most of the videos
are based on some personal pet theory, which they then go and build a video around, rather than just doing a study on a topic
and presenting what information is available.

Ultimately this is a problem you also get in books, which becomes very apparent after you`ve written one. You look back at old books
you used to read like the bible and most have NO archive references !!

In other words there is no feasible way to check anything they wrote.

So verifying what is valid, and what is garbage is a serious problem in all formats of historical presentation. Now when I go to a bookshop
I do what I never used to do, flick right to the end and see if they have fully referenced archive file lists, if they don't, I never ever buy it.

The number of authors who write entire series of books after literally just reading 30 other books and sort of "almagamating" the particular
aspect they`re interested in into a story is beyond belief.

No archive references = Garbage

Even this does not guarantee everything, but it filters out 90% of the junk.

 

[SaparotRob]

.......
The only channel I know of which is trustworthy, is:

https://www.youtube.com/@MilitaryAviationHistory

This is not to say that its "guaranteed" that every single thing he`s ever said online is the best possible interpretation, but I know him, and
have helped him with several videos, and can say that he is really trying to be a good historian and wants to really find out the facts.
He does a reasonable amount of original archive research.
....

I got one right!

 

[SaparotRob]

D Deleted member 68059 , are you comfortable sharing your opinion of other channels?

 

[33k in the air]

I have to admit Hard Thrasher is a guilty pleasure of mine.

That channel is currently running a series on the strategic bomber offensive. However, it uses the phrase 'Bomber Mafia' which immediately makes me suspicious.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

That channel is currently running a series on the strategic bomber offensive. However, it uses the phrase 'Bomber Mafia' which immediately makes me suspicious.

It doesn't help that the incorrigible moron Malcom Gladwell wrote a crap book of the same name, which my son could better (my son is two years old and eats fruit he smeared over his own face and then dropped on his trousers).

The book by the way "The bomber mafia" is basically an extended magazine article. It has literally zero primary source archive research and only manages to be a book at all by using a x10 font size, it has about 20 words a page and is thinner than your little finger.

 

[33k in the air]

No archive references = Garbage

Even this does not guarantee everything, but it filters out 90% of the junk.

Have you checked out the WWII US Bomber channel? It does the archival reference well, so I think you might like it. There have been several videos in which the title page of a source is shown, one I hadn't seen before, and was able to run an internet search using that title and find the source document, expanding my (admittedly limited) collection.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Have you checked out the WWII US Bomber channel? It does the archival reference well, so I think you might like it. There have been several videos in which the title page of a source is shown, one I hadn't seen before, and was able to run an internet search using that title and find the source document, expanding my (admittedly limited) collection.

I dont know it! - Thanks I`ll check it out

 

[tyrodtom]

Look at "the plane France is most proud of " if you need a good laugh.
It sets new standards for the lowest quality video I've seen on U-tube.
But still some people praise him in the comments .

 

[gruad]

I dont know it! - Thanks I`ll check it out

Well worth it. Really clear explanations.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Look at "the plane France is most proud of " if you need a good laugh.
It sets new standards for the lowest quality video I've seen on U-tube.
But still some people praise him in the comments .

Thanks but I used up all my "Good Laughs" on a certain YouTube historical series last year. They`re all gone now.

Its like Steven Wright:

"I don't have to walk my dog anymore. I walked him all at once.".

 

[SaparotRob]

Stephen Wright is one the great comedians. I love deadpan.
"I have a map of the Earth. It's one to one scale."

 

[Crimea_River]

I went for a walk on the ledge of my apartment building. I'm not afraid of heights but I am afraid of widths.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

"There's a fine line between fishing, and sitting on the shore with a beer."