Jump to content

Menu

Story of the World??


Recommended Posts

Okay I'm not trying to stir up trouble or anything. I had planned on using SOTW and then I went to Amazon and read the countless reviews listing off all these inaccuracies in the texts. But then I come here and hear about how wonderful they are. Can someone explain it to me. They sound like a lot of fun, but then I don't want to be reading stuff that is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bookwormmama

I admit that I have read and heard the same things as you and this is the one reason I haven't made the jump into doing SOTW either.... sigh, maybe someone else here can clear this up for us? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have thoroughly enjoyed using Story of the World so much so that we are using it exclusively next year. We have been blending it with Sonlight. I read all the same reviews on Amazon and here, but I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't know of any text that is 100 percent accurate, except the Bible and some would even argue on that ;). For us the purpose of the grammar stage is to feed her mind and get her interested in the various subjects. Story of the World has done that for us for history. It is literally the story of the world's history that is written for children. Read the samples and give it a shot, it's been a great fit here! I hope that helps :)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge you to find an elementary level history book that isn't guilty of the same crime. You can always balance the book against a history encyclopedia - there are several online resources that line-up the SOTW with several popular ones. I think it does a better job than most mitigating bias and its western-focus. I read it with confidence to my two girls most nights and know that they will get more detail later in their life, but now they are learning to enjoy the flow of history. It is the favorite subject of my 8yo, and my 4yo is planning to have history be her favorite subject "when she is old enough."

 

It isn't perfect, but it does a great job at narrative history for an elementary audience. I keep my Kingfisher handy to get more depth and background in case my kids want to discuss a topic that I don't know (which seems to many).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That will be fine!

 

We used Chow and Kingfisher Encyc. of History as "back up" as well.

 

I'm not sure what all the fuss was about, either.

 

SoTW isn't just about the content, either. I'm more than willing to put up with any small inaccuracies in order to have a text that 1) is written so that my children will learn how to narrate back to me, and 2) instills an enthusiasm like I've never seen for a subject. That may not be your experience--but I hope it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used all four volumes of SOTW and I didn't find any stand out inaccuracies. I'm sure there are some there, probably more from the fact that one can find conflicting information in primary sources. Instead of explaining both points of view, SWB would have chosed one and presented it. It is designed for kids. It had to be presented in a simplified way.

 

I've seen many of these threads, someone questioning the accuracy of SOTW, but I've never seen any glaring inaccuracies listed in the posts. Sometimes people have listed nit-picky (IMO) inaccuracies, but I don't worry too much about those. Maybe you can search these boards to try to find those posts, and see if they're things you can live with or not.

 

:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always hear about this but when people are pressed to actually point out the inaccuracies they seem to always slink away.

 

I think the study and recording of historical data is highly subjective anyway, so one person's impression will vary from another person's. If we all witnessed a car accident together, each of us would probably give a different version of the events. History is no different.

 

And SOTW is not the final word for your children. At least I hope it isn't. They are going to see things in National Geographic and on the History Channel and in high school and in college that will refute or back up what they have learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the things people complain about is history being presented in a simplified way. But in a book for children, that is bound to happen. I happen to think the SWB did a pretty good balancing act of making the narrative flow engaging and thorough.

 

The other point I've seen addressed (although I didn't see the actual complaint of this) is that the myths, folktales and legends of different cultures are presented as fact. We've never had a problem with this. The text usually says something like "Here is one story the Aborigines tell about the Dreamtime" or "The Ancient Greeks told many stories about their gods and goddesses. Here is one of them."

 

History is complicated, but SOTW does a good job of making it accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge you to find an elementary level history book that isn't guilty of the same crime. You can always balance the book against a history encyclopedia - there are several online resources that line-up the SOTW with several popular ones. I think it does a better job than most mitigating bias and its western-focus. I read it with confidence to my two girls most nights and know that they will get more detail later in their life, but now they are learning to enjoy the flow of history. It is the favorite subject of my 8yo, and my 4yo is planning to have history be her favorite subject "when she is old enough."

 

It isn't perfect, but it does a great job at narrative history for an elementary audience. I keep my Kingfisher handy to get more depth and background in case my kids want to discuss a topic that I don't know (which seems to many).

 

:iagree:

 

Two points I wanted to say. First, I know a homeschool mom who teaches SOTW to her children and takes a college level history class at night. She told me that the professor wanted to how she knew such good information about history. He thought that she was majoring in history. She had to admit it was from SOTW. That says something about the program.

 

Second, history is one of the most subjective subjects. It really is based upon how the author sees it. I think that it shows that things are not always as they seem. I asked a historian once many years ago, if history is really based upon how the historian views it, how do we know if it is true? He told me that you have to look at several sources of history and then come to your own conclusions.

 

Finally, I think that SOTW is a wonderful elementary program because it is easy to read and simplifies history. We are on our second go around with this series.

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

I just read a review on Amazon. It was one is a few. The reviewer states "this book was full of inaccuracies." The reviewer never explains what these inaccuracies are. I struggle with reviews that say, "this is a great book" or "this book is no good." They are not telling you why the book is great or no good. The review gives no supporting evidence to her statement. Anyone can say anything about the book. What are the specific inaccuracies that is promoting this reviewer?

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

Edited by Testimony
add the part after reading the Amazon review
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some of the inaccuracies pointed out on Amazon. Again I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I am leaning towards using it along with my other sources. I don't care if things are simplified because I'm going to be using it with a 5 almost 6 yr old. These inaccuracies are what concern me the most. Can someone explain them to me? I looked into the other threads and didn't see these addressed

 

 

 

in Book One, Bauer describes Alcibiades as betraying Athens and leading an army into the city. Utterly incorrect. She admits she moved Boudicca's revolt until a later date in order to show that the Roman Empire was breaking down. Hello, you can't move historic dates in order to "prove" a hypothesis. Bauer also has a strong religous agenda.

 

She decribes New Kingdom mummification practices in the section about the Old Kingdom and the pyramids.

 

She states that Pharoahs weren't buried in mastaba tombs when they had been before the invention of the pyramid

 

She informs the reader that the Minoan civilization was destroyed by the eruption of Thera when it really flourished two centuries after that explosion. She implies that the modern Olympics have decended from the ancient Olympics in an unbroken line of tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so far from a history expert that I can't speak to any actual historical inaccuracies. But I have to say that this particular reviewer is taking sentences out of the context of the chapter they are in, and making inferences that just. aren't. there.

 

She states that Pharoahs weren't buried in mastaba tombs when they had been before the invention of the pyramid

 

 

SOTW: "But even mastaba tombs weren't good enough for pharaohs. The pharaohs were buried in the biggest tombs of all - pyramids." Sure, if you only read that one sentence, it seems that pharaohs weren't buried in mastaba tombs. But that sentence is part of several paragraphs that show the evolution of Egyptian burial methods across time - underground, then mastaba tombs, then pyramids.

 

She implies that the modern Olympics have decended from the ancient Olympics in an unbroken line of tradition.

 

SOTW: "Today, the Olympic Games are still held every four years." Sure, perhaps "again" would have been a better word choice than "still," but as the chapter also states that the Greeks held Olympics for almost 1,000 years, I don't think it was in any way implied that there has been an unbroken chain of Olympics.

 

She admits she moved Boudicca's revolt until a later date in order to show that the Roman Empire was breaking down. Hello, you can't move historic dates in order to "prove" a hypothesis.

 

 

Historical Dates were not changed. Simply the order in which material is presented. "Note to Parents: Boadicea's revolt against Rome was in AD/CE 61-63; it is presented slightly out of chronological order in order to introduce the idea that Rome was weakening."

 

Bauer also has a strong religous agenda.

 

 

That's always the biggest argument. Not secular enough, not Christian enough, yada yada. It's no big secret that SWB is Christian. But as someone who is not Christian, I have had no problems with SOTW being "too-Christian."

 

Honestly, I had these same concerns when I read the reviews before purchasing SOTW. And then I bought it and looked at the sections the reviewers complained about. And I realized that the reviewers had their own agenda. And there are bound to be inaccuracies and differences of opinion in any history source. We read additional history books, so I really don't worry about any historical inaccuracies, but even if we didn't, SOTW would still be great for grammar stage. It is not designed to be the be-all, end-all source of all history learning ever in one's life.

Edited by Laurel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always hear about this but when people are pressed to actually point out the inaccuracies they seem to always slink away.

 

 

 

*cough* I've observed that too... ;)

 

 

I agree with the rest of Kelli's post too. This is elementary school history. The idea is exposure and interest. History is subjective, especially ancient history. They will encounter these stories and people again later when they can process smaller details.

 

I think that a history text that strives solely for accuracy would be over 99.99% of elementary students' heads. Becca loves history, and I'm discovering a love for it too - you can't argue with that!

 

 

And I'm also not Christian, using SOTW, and I haven't found any "agenda" in it at all. I use History Odyssey along with it, which is more secular, but still ends up marking only a couple of SOTW chapters as optional. If they think SWB has a "strong religious agenda," they haven't looked at much of what's out there for homeschooling!

Edited by Mommy22alyns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so far from a history expert that I can't speak to any actual historical inaccuracies. But I have to say that this particular reviewer is taking sentences out of the context of the chapter they are in, and making inferences that just. aren't. there.

 

 

 

SOTW: "But even mastaba tombs weren't good enough for pharaohs. The pharaohs were buried in the biggest tombs of all - pyramids." Sure, if you only read that one sentence, it seems that pharaohs weren't buried in mastaba tombs. But that sentence is part of several paragraphs that show the evolution of Egyptian burial methods across time - underground, then mastaba tombs, then pyramids.

 

 

 

SOTW: "Today, the Olympic Games are still held every four years." Sure, perhaps "again" would have been a better word choice than "still," but as the chapter also states that the Greeks held Olympics for almost 1,000 years, I don't think it was in any way implied that there has been an unbroken chain of Olympics.

 

 

 

Historical Dates were not changed. Simply the order in which material is presented. "Note to Parents: Boadicea's revolt against Rome was in AD/CE 61-63; it is presented slightly out of chronological order in order to introduce the idea that Rome was weakening."

 

 

 

That's always the biggest argument. Not secular enough, not Christian enough, yada yada. It's no big secret that SWB is Christian. But as someone who is not Christian, I have had no problems with SOTW being "too-Christian."

 

Honestly, I had these same concerns when I read the reviews before purchasing SOTW. And then I bought it and looked at the sections the reviewers complained about. And I realized that the reviewers had their own agenda. And there are bound to be inaccuracies and differences of opinion in any history source. We read additional history books, so I really don't worry about any historical inaccuracies, but even if we didn't, SOTW would still be great for grammar stage. It is not designed to be the be-all, end-all source of all history learning ever in one's life.

Great Post!:hurray: This says it better than I could!:thumbup1:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love SOTW and it's what my daughter will listen to, until it's memorized! And, I love that all the "notes to parents" are read to my child...(with a preface of "note to parents" read by Weiss) SO, the notes are really pounded into her head.

Thanks for talking about "errors". I've loved the books, but hadn't quite understood the dating part. So, I'm quite content that the dates with those explanations are fine.

We are doing LCC and SOTW is done on her own time. I really feel that it helps round out her learning experience. I plan on having her "memorize" all 4 of them. So far she's done Volume 3.

I'm hoping that this year I can get the Ancient book by SWB for adults. I wish that was on cd, too!!

Carrie:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the chapter that describes the Quran first being revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), SOTW has two paragraphs that I find completely bizarre:

 

"Suddenly he heard a faint musical sound. It grew louder and louder, as though bells were ringing all around him. He opened his eyes, but he could see nothing but rock and sand."

 

...

 

"Suddenly Muhammad saw a silk scroll, floating in the air. Words were written on it in letters of fire. And although Muhammad had never learned to read, suddenly he knew what the words said!"

 

Never in my religious studies (as a Muslim) have I ever seen these things. Music/bells? Silk scrolls? Words in fire? Muhammad learning to read? I have never heard these things before. They seem very strange to me and make the story seem completely different.

 

That said, I use SOTW, greatly appreciate what it does, and just edit as I find necessary. I do think about all the people learning about Islam for the first time thinking this is our story, but I hope everyone takes history with some salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in your boat, too. Before I bought it I read all the INACCURATE :Dreviews on Amazon. I'm pretty sure that **every single one of the 'complaining people'** have NEVER REALLY read it! Once I started reading it, I was hooked. It's very interesting and my dd loves the activities in the Activity Guide. Maybe the dissenters just don't like the fact that it reads like a story??:001_huh: To me, those opinion-spousers are just like all the other folk who MUST comment on their disfavorable view of homeschooling....even though they've never homeschooled!:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bayt a friend of mine is an Orthodox Jew and she had issues as well with the Jewish history side of it. I'm hoping that between the different texts we'll use that we'll be able to correct some of the things. I'll make note of that one because I know my son will be asking about that vision. He is very literal kind of guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who should we take as the ultimate authority on history then? There isn't one. One of my history professors at uni wrote sections of encyclopedias and he assured us that they are chock full of bias. In fact he and his mates would sit around and joke over what kind of bias to give this time. After all, no one is going to pay them if their contribution is the same, word for word, as the last edition. The best we can do is to look at all the available info and decide for ourselves which sounds most plausible; and that's not really appropriate for grammar stage kids. There is no ultimate truth in history, because it is too large, but of course there some claims that are too ridiculous and unsupported by data. My grandfather really didn't build the pyramids and Sydney Harbour Bridge as he liked to claim... ;)

 

:)

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've enjoyed them. I find the comment that they're written from an overtly Christian perspective really off.

 

I think almost everyone can find some aspect of SOTW to disagree with.

As an unapologetic capitalist, I found her obvious preference for the pre-industrial age annoying. Her charactorization of how capital systems work was simplistic. And she really never articulates the positives of modernity and industrialization. But, hey, I feel free to offer my kiddos my opinions as necessary correctives. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'll google old conversations, I feel certain you'll find numerous instances of this being asked in past on these boards, along with many responses. For myself, as I've said in past, I have not found instances of error throughout the texts. I've used all four of them and am working through them again now, about to finish up Ancients for the second time. We read from many, MANY other books for each time period and I have NEVER found SOTW to be at odds with what we're reading from other texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was put off by the Amazon reviews for awhile, but my kids have enjoyed SOTW 1 this year. We plan on continuing with SOTW 2 next year.

 

In reading more "adult level" books for myself to supplement what I was telling the kids in addition to the SOTW chapters, I found some descriptions of events/people which differed from what Bauer wrote. None were very important at my kid's ages. The only ones I can think of right now dealt with personal life / friends / family stuff on Alexander the Great and especially the Cleopatra/Julius Caesar relationship. In both those cases, I think it is hard to know what exactly happened or what they were like, so she just chose one story and went with it. Like previous posters said, history is filled with bias.

 

As a Catholic, I know I'll be keeping a sharp eye out in SOTW 2 to add in some 'balance' to the claim that "Bloody Mary" was a horrible ruler and "Good Queen Bess" was the greatest.

 

The kids really like SOTW and they retain so much from the 'story telling' format. I hope they have put up lots and lots of "pegs" in their brains where they can hang more information the next time we go through history (probably using a different curriculum, but who knows?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading through vol. 4 right now, and I found an inaccuracy that set my teeth on edge! In the chapter on Czar Nicholas II, of course it talks about the tsarevitch's hemophilia. It says, "Many of the men in the royal Russian family had inherited this horrible disease." (p.224) :confused: But the hemophiliac gene was passed down from Queen Victoria, whose descendants spread it throughout Europe's royal families. The tsarina was Victoria's granddaughter, and she was the carrier, not Nicholas II.

 

However, on the whole I love SOTW. While I'm not enough of a historian to be able to nitpick every little thing, I think it's very well done indeed and you can never make everyone happy.

 

But the hemophilia thing should be fixed. :coolgleamA:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Hemophilia issue should be fixed. I'm very familiar with the fact that it came through the British line. I'm a carrier for it. My grandfather and great uncles had it and so does my cousin's son. I've been blessed with to healthy sons though. I am currently going through History Odyssey Level 3 Ancients so that I can learn Ancient History. So I should be prepared to tackle Level 1 in the fall. I can't wait. I really don't mind the biases in SOTW because I know that no matter what text I use there will be biases. My main concerns were factual info that was incorrect. But as a pp pointed out, the amazon review that listed the incorrect facts had taken it all out of context and so that makes me feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. I'd like to emphasize that I really do love SOTW and think it's one of the best things out there, so don't let one little minor mistake get in the way of that. I plan to just mention it and keep going. And differences in viewpoint are good! They make us think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used all four volumes of SOTW and I didn't find any stand out inaccuracies. I'm sure there are some there, probably more from the fact that one can find conflicting information in primary sources. Instead of explaining both points of view, SWB would have chosed one and presented it. It is designed for kids. It had to be presented in a simplified way.

 

I've seen many of these threads, someone questioning the accuracy of SOTW, but I've never seen any glaring inaccuracies listed in the posts. Sometimes people have listed nit-picky (IMO) inaccuracies, but I don't worry too much about those. Maybe you can search these boards to try to find those posts, and see if they're things you can live with or not.

 

:001_smile:

:iagree:Where is this bad Amazon review?

 

As I have been researching for my own history curriculum, I see where there are many instances in which experts disagree, even when those experts are looking at the same archaeological evidence.

Edited by Lovedtodeath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the main review I referred to, but the pieces I copy and pasted were from a couple of different ones. On this pg scroll down to the review by herodotus. I mainly scanned to see the negative reviews since I read good reviews on here all the time. The previous poster addressed the inaccuracies in this review.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Story-World-History-Classical-Earliest/product-reviews/1933339012/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_4?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=4&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you!

 

She decribes New Kingdom mummification practices in the section about the Old Kingdom and the pyramids.

 

I have yet to find any children's history book that does not do this. I also found it interesting that when archaeologists were searching the Great Pyramid all they found was a mummified foot. This was in several books. :confused:

 

She informs the reader that the Minoan civilization was destroyed by the eruption of Thera when it really flourished two centuries after that explosion.
I am pretty sure that this is an opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the main review I referred to, but the pieces I copy and pasted were from a couple of different ones. On this pg scroll down to the review by herodotus. I mainly scanned to see the negative reviews since I read good reviews on here all the time. The previous poster addressed the inaccuracies in this review.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Story-World-History-Classical-Earliest/product-reviews/1933339012/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_4?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=4&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

 

I read Herodotus' review. Did he read SOTW Vol.1? I read the book and my son read the book, Alcibiades is never mentioned in SOTW Vol. 1. I struggle with the fact that he is stating information that is not in the book.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

Edited by Testimony
mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Herodotus' review. Did he read SOTW Vol.1? I read the book and my son read the book, Alcibiades is never mentioned in SOTW Vol. 1. I struggle with the fact that he is stating information that is not in the book.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

Alcibiades is mentioned as well. (I noticed you took out the bit about Boadicea...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the chapter that describes the Quran first being revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), SOTW has two paragraphs that I find completely bizarre:

 

"Suddenly he heard a faint musical sound. It grew louder and louder, as though bells were ringing all around him. He opened his eyes, but he could see nothing but rock and sand."

 

...

 

"Suddenly Muhammad saw a silk scroll, floating in the air. Words were written on it in letters of fire. And although Muhammad had never learned to read, suddenly he knew what the words said!"

 

Never in my religious studies (as a Muslim) have I ever seen these things. Music/bells? Silk scrolls? Words in fire? Muhammad learning to read? I have never heard these things before. They seem very strange to me and make the story seem completely different.

 

That said, I use SOTW, greatly appreciate what it does, and just edit as I find necessary. I do think about all the people learning about Islam for the first time thinking this is our story, but I hope everyone takes history with some salt.

 

 

My dc found Muhammad very interesting and wanted to learn more about him and Islam in general. I admit though, that although I took a class (one semester) on Islam in College I know little about it. We went to the library and found as many books as we could, but there is not much out there. Any suggestions?

 

I also never heard the ref. to music and bells before, but I have heard about the "words of fire" from a Prof. who happened to be Muslim, Maybe people feel it's the easiest way to describe it to those of us that are ignorant on the subject. Would love to find a good book on the subject, so my children and I could learn.

 

Danielle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the chapter that describes the Quran first being revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), SOTW has two paragraphs that I find completely bizarre:

 

"Suddenly he heard a faint musical sound. It grew louder and louder, as though bells were ringing all around him. He opened his eyes, but he could see nothing but rock and sand."

 

...

 

"Suddenly Muhammad saw a silk scroll, floating in the air. Words were written on it in letters of fire. And although Muhammad had never learned to read, suddenly he knew what the words said!"

 

Never in my religious studies (as a Muslim) have I ever seen these things. Music/bells? Silk scrolls? Words in fire? Muhammad learning to read? I have never heard these things before. They seem very strange to me and make the story seem completely different.

I was curious about this too. I found a very similar description in

http://www.hermetic.com/sabazius/mohammed.htm

and

http://www.greatpath.org/Islam.pdf

which seem virtually identical, and seem to be part of some movement I don't know anything about.

and this random web article quotes an author named Payne writing something very similar about a scroll of fire. Maybe that is her source. I don't know who this Payne is or what book this appeared in.

 

(I also found something tangentially similar on an anti-Islam website to which I will not link.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dc found Muhammad very interesting and wanted to learn more about him and Islam in general. I admit though, that although I took a class (one semester) on Islam in College I know little about it. We went to the library and found as many books as we could, but there is not much out there. Any suggestions?

 

I honestly haven't found much that is very appealing. I'm considering a career writing Islamic children's books lol for just this reason. Have you seen Demi's Muhammad? I don't use it in my house because of the pictures of angels, prophets, and al-Buraaq (the beast), but I do think it is beautifully done and true to our traditions.

 

If you're up for movies, The Message (with Anthony Quinn) is good, as are the PBS documentaries Islam: Empire of Faith and Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. National Geographic's Inside Mecca is good too. These latter two also highlight the diversity of the Muslims today.

 

I wish I could recommend other books, but there just aren't too many good ones (at least that I know of). Hopefully others will step in with some other ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LadyAberlin,

 

I wanted to let you know that I got Little History of the World in the mail yesterday and started reading it through. It is set up very different from SOTW. Of course, there is about 1/4 of the information. Up to the Greeks, each civilization gets one chapter. The author "speaks" to the readers as though they have already heard Bible stories like the Tower of Babel, Joseph, etc. I find that assumption strange. It definitely does not seem any more secular than SOTW, which I found surprising. At this point, I don't know that I will be using it for grammar stage any time soon. Just a heads up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...