Talk:Waroch II

Henry H. Howorth
I am not entirely convinced that Howorths article is a reliable source. He admits at page 27 of his article (page 319 of the journal) The conclusions I have arrived at are at issue with those of the school of history now dominant, [...]. While I agree with some of his conclusions (especially the back-formation of personal names), it seems his article has not influenced the dominant school of history a lot in almost 130 years.

O, by the way, the FAQ at jstor.org seems to indicate that JSTOR has limited access. Erik Warmelink 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * JSTOR does have limited access. If you have any affiliation with a univeristy or college, you probably have access. If not, you probably need to subscribe. Srnec 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have access and the reference to the source is clear enough. Even if a subscription is required, an online source is more convenient than having to wait until the local library receives a copy of the journal. Erik Warmelink 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyways, Howorth is only cited for facts in this article. I did not use his paper for any evaluative statements. If I have the time, I will get another source for the statements he currently backs up, but those are hardly, to my knowledge, controversial. Srnec 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, don't feel obliged to convince me, I am just a &mdash;somewhat interested&mdash; amateur. If you consider the statements uncontroversial, that's more than enough for me. Erik Warmelink 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)