Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

Another 3 advices to add to Sardathrion's: Try not to let emotions affect you into mistaking incidents for trends (one such example from History SE was when someone described US involvement in Vietnam as being a pattern of massacres. While Mai Lai is indeed horrific, it's (given the scale) a minor blip that serves to prove the opposite trend (out of ...


8

Try to go back to primary source and archaeological evidences. Are there mass graves? What about population movement? What do statistics have to say about the population, economy, and whatnot? You can look at the documents and narratives's authors and find out inconsistencies within them or evidence of forgeries/lies -- note that lack of such is not ...


8

The answer lies in history being a discursive and inductive practice where our evidentiary materials are untrustworthy. A preponderance of the evidence, correctly interpreted, with a correct interpretation of what constitutes relevant evidence is required. This is obviously debatable. My invaluable peasant letters are your irrelevant ephemera. Proofs can't ...


3

IMO there is no number that can be specified as sufficient. Everything depends on the nature of the evidence and the sources presented: In one case, we may have only one eyewitness account from a historical actor or witness, or one archeological artifact that is accepted as valid, and that may be enough to stand as historical proof. In another case, we ...


3

You should consider looking at alternative sources that are not biased as part of your research. For example, the United Nations issues reports that provide a generally unbiased view of situations going on in different countries throughout the world. Usually their reports will provide a fairly accurate view of both sides of the events, and then it is up to ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible