Otto Von Bismarck On Wikipedia And Britannica

What are some of the things that determine whether a source is creditable? First is relevance; Ms. White’s article was written in February of 2015 (White). All of the studies she used were published in 2015, making them very current. When it comes to economic discussions, this is crucial, as economics can quickly change.

Germany started out as a divided nation fighting for dominance in Europe. Otto Von Bismarck was able to take this struggling complexity and unify it. During this process Bismarck turned the small country of Prussia into a powerhouse, growing the population from 11 to 18 million. Bismarck sprung from a landlord class and moved his way up the political ladder as realpolitik, realistic Politician. He was a man of simple ideals; he stressed duty, service, order, and the fear of God. These ideals along with manipulative tactics are what lead Bismarck on his journey of the unification of Germany, proving that without Bismarck’s diplomatic efforts between 1871 and 1890 Europe would not be the stabilized continent it is today.

Under the guidance of Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor, the unification of a Kleindeutsch (small Germany) took place in 1871 after Prussia defeated France. There is often historical debate over who was responsible for the unification of Germany. Controversy is caused amongst those who believe that Bismarck was fully responsible for German unification and those who believe other factors played an equally or even more important part. The historian Pflanze is an example of someone who considers Bismarck to be solely responsible, as opposed to Bohme, who gives full credit to economic factors in unifying Germany. However, there is also a middle view, supported by historians such as Medlicott, who argue that Bismarck and other relevant factors

The Wikipedia article on Robert Smalls is not a reliable source of information. Simply because Wikipedia is a form of online Encyclopedia; and you cannot cite Encyclopedia’s to begin with. That being said, I do not think students or the general user should dismiss the source completely because it does have a lot of valuable information in it. Wikipedia is there as a first step in your research, to inform you and give you a good solid background of information you are looking for before you start your deeper research. Personally, I really enjoy Wikipedia because it helps me look for certain points in my research and it makes it a little bit easier. Some people assume that any website is reliable or that only .Edu, .Gov, and .Org are. Even

Otto von Bismarck is widely known as the first modern politician. Because of this, his interpretation of conservatism is different and is the first of its kind. The reason Bismarck represents a new and different kind of conservatism is that unlike traditional conservatives, Bismarck is willing to adapt his views to fit the people's current needs. While Bismarck's methods can be considered traditionally conservative in his early days as a political leader, with things such as the Anti-Socialist Acts, by looking deeper and analyzing what he did later in life shows that he was a more modern conservative. Some examples of Bismarck’s modern conservatism were his restraint on letting Germany go to war with any other country, and his policy of separation of church and state. Compared to other leaders like Napoleon III, Bismarck had the ability to plan and invest in Germany’s future. Bismarck supported this by being able to change his views and ideas when it became necessary. Bismarck’s time was born when the Franco-Prussian war began. This is what led to Bismarck becoming so famous at the time, as his military victories were heard of all over

1. Although online bibliographic generators are generally accurate, it 's always best practice to verify the accuracy of the citations by

But like everything else this can also have it’s draw backs. Because there is so much information out there that is not credible, the problem is how do we know which one is and which one is not. I am glad that I have found out that the wikipedia site is not a reliable source because this is one of the first ones that pops up after we input what we want to find out. This

It has been said by several historians that the second half of the nineteenth century was the ‘Age of Bismarck.’ In the mid 1800’s Bismarck provided dynamic leadership- a trait which had been lacking during the events of 1848-89. Ian Mitchell stated “Bismarck was everywhere.” However, there has been a considerable degree of debate concerning the role of Bismarck in the unification of Germany. Some argue that unification would have been inevitable and had nothing to do with Bismarck, although others argue that the unification was solely down to Bismarck’s role. There are differing opinions on whether Bismarck was a planner or an opportunist or whether he was merely just

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a German version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of “Bismarck’s individuality and his responsibility for the political development of the Empire” (Breuilly 172). Bismarck was known to support nationalism and patriotism, and he believed in the Burschenschaften or student organizations. He also believed in the concept of faith in power, more in ideas. Bismarck only cared for two things: Prussia and Prussian power, and he would do anything to obtain Prussian domination. Although Bismarck did not care for Germany, he was all for German Unification. Historians cannot decide if Bismarck’s legacy is positive or negative but they agree that he was a “brilliant and shrewd tactician who succeeded in postponing the problem of political mobilization for 60 years” (Breuilly 172). In Otto von Bismarck, some people saw a great man who was ahead of his time, while others saw nothing more than a bloodthirsty power monger, who wanted a united Germany to

I think that it is credible because it has been published by the Australian National University and its author (A) is Lyndall Ryan. The year (D) of the source is 2012. The purpose (P) of this source was to be an essay but know is being used for information. It has a different perspective to all my other sources. The information was factual (O) and language (L) was strong and persuasive. I also believe that the source is credible because Lyndall has referenced his work well and used a lot of evidence including interviews with other historians. This site was useful because it had lots of information and was easy to understand. I found the writing too small so I had to copy it into a word document and increase the text size. It was very clear and had good evidence to back it up. This source was very

As graduate students we are required to increase our scholar credibility through validating a source with other sources. Information literacy is the appropriate way to avoid this infringement from occurring. This type of literacy requires the scholar to implement/identify five components which include critical analysis, and proper

Otto von Bismarck was the prime minister of Germany during the time of German unification, formerly the prime minister of Prussia. Bismarck struck quite the nationalist chord in the German peoples, convincing the southern German states to join the the northern ones. He was known as a hardcore conservative, however he was a practitioner of realpolitik, and was able to approve policies that appealed to different ideologies for the sake of the country. Otto von Bismarck’s specific brand of conservatism was different than classic conservatism in that Bismarck attempted to appeal more to the working class, and he had a good few liberal policies. However, Bismarck also had traditionally conservative ideas, such as suppressing opposing views.

As the resource implies these are community-created which suggests collaboration. Some of the advantages are that multiple individuals can access and utilize the resource at the same time, changes not only can be made by anyone, but it is also updated the moment the change takes place without lag time, and there is a plethora of information on search topic and links to provide other or additional information (Village, 2014). However, some of the advantages to community-created resources are also the downfalls. One has been told that websites such as, Wikipedia should not be utilized for research as it may not be a credible source. This point of view seems to make sense, as many individuals can create and edit a Wiki page, yet it does not mean that the information is necessarily accurate or placed there by a credible

I also used the website ProCon.org as a starting point for research just like I used Wikipedia. If the sites referenced a book for a part of their information, and I wanted to use that information, it was often difficult to find and cite the book that Wikipedia or Procon.org were referencing. Furthermore, I was surprised on how hard it was to divide and partition the different subtopics within our topic among our group, as there were so many subtopics to write about for physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. In the end, we decided to have one person write about the pros of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, one person to write the cons of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and one person to write about the history and legal status of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Originally, I had researched about 15-20 credible sources, to use for my paper, but in the end, I only used 10 of those

Value: As this source is written from previous biographies and a few monographs, it’s value is that it covers the events from the time Bismarck rose to power up to the unification of Germany and beyond. It reveals how Bismarck made all his political moves and it gives a better insight of Bismarck’s personal life and decisions he made regarding the at the time when the issue of German unification was