Oral histories could be less accurate as they are passed on or forgot portions of the story. Also, some people could lie about it.
Historians consult various sources to gain a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of past events, as different perspectives can reveal biases, motivations, and contexts that a single source might overlook. Utilizing diverse materials—such as primary documents, secondary analyses, and oral histories—allows historians to corroborate information and construct a more accurate narrative. This methodological pluralism helps mitigate the impact of potential inaccuracies or biases inherent in any one source, leading to a richer, more balanced interpretation of history.
The way they lived back then.
because he is sick
A historian might use a source like the one above to gain insights into the cultural, social, or political context of the time period it represents. They could analyze the language, themes, and perspectives presented in the source to understand the attitudes and beliefs of the people involved. Additionally, the source could serve as evidence to support or challenge existing narratives, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of historical events. Finally, it may help historians trace the evolution of ideas or trends over time.
because it was lucky
it could be useful by helping others with their explorations
It describes the event as it was experienced at the time. (APEX)
Information that you can trust would be termed reliable. If you aren't sure of the source, or the source is someone that you don't trust, then the information would be unreliable, and you wouldn't count on it in an important situation. If the information is reliable, then you might trust it without doing your own research.
Sorry but for a better answer you might want to look at another source wiki answers isn't alwaysa reliable source.
The better ones were careful to research their topics properly and get all the reliable information they could from the past, and present these honestly. Many historians of today who twist or ignore the facts for their own political leaninggs would benefit from their approach.
Well, I heard from a reliable source that she came from a Christian family, but she might not be.
There are several reasons why historians might have written about past conflicts. One reason is that often, these conflicts result in changes for those countries or people involved.
I'm not great at insects, but it might be a Copestylum mexicanum. You might want to try a more reliable source than me. It would help to know where you saw it.
I'm not great at insects, but it might be a Copestylum mexicanum. You might want to try a more reliable source than me. It would help to know where you saw it.
I just found a trusted source for (writing and translation services) Thought I should share for it might help those in need.
The better ones were careful to research their topics properly and get all the reliable information they could from the past, and present these honestly. Many historians of today who twist or ignore the facts for their own political leaninggs would benefit from their approach.
An average of 81.5 years of age. Source Google.com/publicdata Since 2009. Statistics might be different, information is 3 years old now. Might not be reliable any longer.