The reference numbers appear to be sourced from the Wikipedia article
Comment on Audubon
Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 4 days agoNumber of citations is not important. It’s about quality. I don’t know anything about the quality of these citations from this. Do you mind summarizing? It’s ok if if nott
computergeek125@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
brief summary: yes he discovered a lot, but he also stole a lot and fakes a lot of things. and then lied about it even more.
Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Right, but who is making those claims? How do we know they are credible?
Themadbeagle@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.
This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.
They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 days ago
You’re asking a stranger in the internet to do a whole lot of work for you.