Alex WellersteinVerified account

The question was about how to evaluate books and articles, which yes, are usually published.

So, wouldn't a more proper response be; "look to [direct sourcing] for their materials?" If they are citing US history, look to those that lived an wrote 1st hand? Like Washington's writing abt his Sentinel's trying to pull a coup on him? Versus a 2nd or 3rd hand cite?

Historians use multitudes of sources to build up complicated interpretations. Sometimes primary sources are more credible. Sometimes they aren't. Depends on the source and the context. There are plenty of self-serving first-hand accounts that are not credible, as you'd expect.

I agree, if the 1st source is a liar, like Trump, then you have to use additional sources to buttress your writing. But again, I would still use Trump as my 1st & primary source then use 2nd sources to prove my point of his lies. Or, just use Trump's dbl talk. Still at 1st src.

Historians literally train for years to learn how to balance the voices of many sources, to triangulate claims, to figure out what one ought to believe. It's not as easy as someone being a liar. There are a million ways individual people can be wrong, mistaken, misremember, etc.

I was using a simplification for limited space. You lost me at the term "triangulate". Far too political word for me and raises a red flag to your opinion. The res I agree. Some history take more investigation. But most credible is seeking 1st src.

"Triangulate" is a mathematical term, not a political one. "Most credible is seeking 1st src" is wrong. Sorry. Most credible is looking at the big picture, which includes, but is not limited to, primary sources. More credible is talking to many experts who do this for a living.

PS No, 1st source is more credible. Your opinion is to see the whole forest wher as mine is to walk into the forest & study every tree in the forest. Have a good day!